Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords]

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 2) BILL. [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

BLYTH HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second reading read.

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Pension Books (Issue)

Mr. Gregory: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average length of time between the receipt of applications for state pensions and the issue of pension books; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Major): Invitations to claim retirement pension are issued four months before pension age. This period is normally sufficient to allow for any necessary inquiries to be made, for the claim to be decided and for an order book to be issued in time for payment on the due date.

Mr. Gregory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment on the normal time. Is he aware of the anxiety that a number—admittedly, a minority—of pensioners experience if their books are not issued by that date? Will my hon. Friend investigate the reasons for any delays at Newcastle?

Mr. Major: I am aware of that anxiety. As far as I am aware, it is not a significant problem at Newcastle. Where it does occur, there is absolute provision for a Girocheque to be issued to the beneficiary so that he does not have a delayed payment of pension.

Mr. Rowe: Regarding the issue of Girocheques, is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety about the possibility of a change being made in the way in which people living in residential institutions receive their pensions? Can he give an assurance that no change will be to the detriment of their independence over their own money?

Mr. Major: That matter arises on a later question today. We are still considering the results of the consultation paper that we issued. I can assure my hon. Friend that any changes will require the voluntary consent of the beneficiary.

Mobility Allowance

Mr. Spencer: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about mobility allowances for sufferers of myasthenia gravis; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I am not aware of any recent representations specifically about suffers of myasthenia gravis.

Mr. Spencer: Is my hon. Friend aware that myasthenia gravis is a rare neurological condition which afflicts one in 30,000 of the population, and that most of them, such as my daughter, strive to lead normal lives, but the fluctuating nature of the symptoms makes it difficult sometimes for many myasthetics to claim mobility allowance to which, for most of the time, they feel they are entitled? Can my hon. Friend assure the House that those fluctuating symptoms are fully taken into consideration by the appropriate boards?

Mr. Newton: I can give my hon. and learned Friend the assurance for which he asked in the latter part of his question. The problem arises with a number of conditions, including multiple sclerosis, of which the medical adjudicating authorities have a good deal of experience. We must all accept that it can be a a difficult problem in the case of fluctuating conditions.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware that there is now a widespread feeling that, following the Lees case, the criteria for awarding mobility allowance has been tightened up, especially to the detriment of multiple handicap people whose ability to walk is affected by severe mental or sensory disabilities? In their interests, will he urgently consider the response that he has given to representations on that important matter?

Mr. Newton: I am aware of the point that the right hon. Gentleman raises following the Lees case and, indeed, the Hilton case. I think he will understand that what is being sought is a clear and specific extension of the criteria for mobility allowance which raises difficult questions of resources. I have undertaken to look further at some of the points that have been made to me about particular issues.

Resource Allocation Working Party

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about the effects of the application of the resource allocation working party formula and the current review; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): I have received a number of representations concerning various aspects of resource allocation and the review of the RAWP formula. Consultation on the review ended yesterday and I am expecting an interim report by the end of this year and then a full report.

Mr. Chapman: As RAWP was introduced nine years ago, will my right hon. Friend say whether it has succeeded


in what it set out to do, or whether it is to be a permanent way of allocating resources in the Health Service? Whatever his answer, will the review consider the effect of RAWP applied not only between regional health authorities but by regional health authorities, because some district health authorities seem to be badly done by in the double application of the formula?

Mr. Fowler: I give consideration to those points. The principle of RAWP is basically to put money where the people are. I think that that principle is accepted by both sides of the House. On sub-regional allocation, clearly the review's findings will be relevant not only when dealing with matters such as patient flow, but for regions in distributing money.

Mr. Ashley: Before there are any changes in the RAWP formula, will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the crisis in north Staffordshire hospitals is infinitely worse than the problems in south-east England? Last winter there was one red alert in a London hospital, but there were continuous red alerts throughout the whole of north Staffordshire.

Mr. Fowler: As I have just made clear, there is no question of abandoning the RAWP principle. The whole point is to try to get equal access to health care for people in equal need. We shall stand by that principle.

Mr. McCrindle: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that, although few of us object to the transfer of resources to areas that have been ill-served in the past, there are some signs that in London and the south-east the position is becoming difficult? Without in any way suggesting that we should withdraw the extra allocation of resources to areas away from London, when my right hon. Friend has the review's report, will he consider increasing the resources to the Thames regional health authorities, which in some respects have larger waiting lists than some places far away from London?

Mr. Fowler: We are considering that and other issues concerned with RAWP. Clearly it is important that the RAWP formula should reflect need as far as possible. That was the purpose of setting up the review.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that, when he has had time to study the RAWP review, he will consider the important report by the Faculty of Community Medicine, which was published today, about some of the bad aspects of the way in which we measure up on the league table of health in relation to other countries? Will he also assure the House that he is now fighting his departmental corner to get more money so that, when the interim and final reports are available, he can do something about the problem?

Mr. Fowler: I shall certainly be happy to respond to the report of the Faculty of Community Medicine. We would agree with a number of its points. We agree that the prevention of disease and promotion of health are vital. However, some of the statistics used by the faculty were selective. It took life expectancy figures from the age of 45, but if life expectancy figures from birth are taken, the United Kingdom is near the top, not the bottom, of the league.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the complaints from Hope hospital in Salford down to St. Thomas's hospital in London are not so much about RAWP as about the total cuts in the Health Service?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman knows enough about this position to be aware that there have been no cuts in resources going into the Health Service. He knows perfectly well that the budget, which was 0·75 billion, has been increased to £18·75 billion. However he does the arithmetic, that cannot be regarded as a cut.

Mr. Sims: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in times of increased costs—with the reasons for which we are both familiar — even relatively well-resourced authorities need substantial increases in funds each year simply to maintain, let alone to improve, the services that they already operate?

Mr. Fowler: Clearly, demographic factors and medical advances have to be taken into account. My hon. Friend will acknowledge that health authorities must also use the resources at their disposal to the best effect.

Mr. Meacher: Is not the misapplication of RAWP one major reason why the Royal College of Physicians reported yesterday that, after seven years of Tory Government, Britain is now one of the unhealthiest countries in the developed world, with low life expectancy and high rates of disease and handicap? Is not the other major reason the fact that the Government are now spending 50 per cent. less on health as a proportion of gross national product compared to the French, the Germans and the Americans? When will the Secretary of State recognise that RAWP cannot work properly while the NHS remains so grossly under-funded by the Government?

Mr. Fowler: I wonder why the hon. Gentleman never compares it with the Labour Government. As he well knows, the Government are spending 24 per cent. more in real terms than the previous Labour Government. We are treating more patients, the capital building programme has been restored and the Health Service is developing into a better Health Service. We will stand not only on our record but on a comparison of that record with the record of the previous Labour Government.

Supplementary Benefit

Mr. Andrew Bowden: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will review the limit on supplementary benefit board and lodgings payments made to those in residential homes who become disabled after retirement age so as to bring it in line with the limit applicable in respect of those who are disabled before that age.

Mr. Newton: While we have no plans to do precisely what my hon. Friend suggests, the new limits proposed from 28 July seek to assist those he has in mind by introducing a substantially increased limit for elderly people in residential care homes who are blind or who qualify for the higher rate of attendance allowance.

Mr. Bowden: I welcome the increases in the limits, but how can my hon. Friend justify a position whereby a person who has retired one day after his birthday will receive a lower allowance if he is disabled on that day than a person who is disabled one day before reaching pensionable age? Surely urely that is not fair.

Mr. Newton: The general position was made clear when we introduced the original limits under the regulations. There is a special position for the younger physically disabled, many of whom might he very young and perhaps


multiple handicapped. We made it clear that there is a distinction to be drawn between them and the general run of people becoming disabled by advancing years. I accept that there are some problems, but broadly it is a reasonable distinction.

Mrs. Beckett: If I understand the Minister's answer, he is saying that those who become blind after retirement will continue to receive a different rate from those who retire when they are blind. If I understand it correctly, as 83 per cent. of those who become blind do so after retirement, the Minister is really saying, "For heaven's sake, if you are going blind, do it the day before you are 65."

Mr. Newton: That is a rather facile point for the hon. Lady to make. She will realise that one of the difficulties we face—for example, in relation to representations about blindness — is that blindness is only one of a number of potentially disabling conditions that arise after retirement age. We have felt it right to deal generally with severely dependent elderly people.

Students (Benefits)

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he now expects to bring forward his regulations on benefits to students.

Mr. Fowler: The regulations will be debated tomorrow.

Mr. Pike: When the Secretary of State made his statement on 18 June, he will recall that he refused repeatedly to say how many losers there would be as a result of the change that was being announced. Will he say now how many people will lose as a result of the changes? Is it not a disgrace? Is it not time that he sat down with officials at the Department of Education and Science and worked out a fair policy for all our students?

Mr. Fowler: I do not accept any of that. As I said when I made the statement, 400,000 students are affected overall: 140,000 gain the full £36 but, because of the concessions, many fewer and smaller housing benefit losses are taking place. Students are not normally affected by losses from more than one source. In other words, they are not cumulative. It is not possible to give the exact figures that the hon. Gentleman has asked for, and that is what I said in my statement.

Mr. Norris: As students in this country enjoy a level of public support way beyond those of all our Western competitors, does my right hon. Friend agree that the right way to proceed in this matter is, first, to consider again the principle of student loans; secondly; to consider that it is wholly inappropriate for students to be financed through a system of supplemetary benefit and housing benefit, which is essentially aimed at a completely different section of society; and, thirdly, that it is of paramount importance to co-ordinate such decisions as are made about students with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, certainly. I entirely accept my hon. Friend's points. The aim of the proposals is to return to a position where help for students is channelled through the education maintenance system. That aim was set out in the social security Green Paper and in the White Paper. Twenty years ago no students claimed in that way. Now most do so at an annual cost approaching £120 million in

the social security budget. It is wrong to have a system which encourages young people to depend on social security. That is why we are taking this action.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister explain how it is possible to calculate how much the changes will cost if he does not know how may people will still lose? How many times in the past has the Treasury come up with extra money without being told the detailed numbers involved? Is he satisfied that there is now sufficient information in local benefit offices to enable students to get their rights rather than the rights that they thought would be removed?

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that information is available in local offices, I will investigate the specific cases. As I have said before, there are a number of matters about which we can be certain. For example, the provision for unemployment and supplementary benefit probably affects 70,000 people. However, I must return to the point that it is impossible to give an exact figure of the kind requested by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), for the simple reason that the losses are not cumulative in the way that the hon. Member for Burnley believes.

Commercial Surrogacy

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to introduce further legislation extending the controls over commercial surrogacy arrangements.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I am keeping the need for amending legislation to the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 under review.

Mr. Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend condemn tine vile practice of surrogacy and womb leasing arrangements which are reported still to be occurring even with the Reproductive Freedom International Organisation run by Miss Lorrien Finley? Surely any kind of womb leasing for financial gain is contrary to the law and the spirit of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. Should not people involved in that practice be prosecuted? Is it not a privilege to have children? People should not play on the emotions of others and make financial gain, which is contrary to the Act.

Mr. Hayhoe: The concern expressed by my hon. Friend would be held by many hon. Members. I have seen the recent reports, and I understand that there has been a police investigation into that particular case, and the Department of Public Prosecutions is considering the report.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) on accepting and recognising that there is a limit to how and where the free market should operate and that morality is more important than the policies of greed and monetarism? Will he ask his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East to accept that the same principle should apply across the board in relation to the Health Service and social services and accept that morality does comes before profit in the Health Service and the social services?

Mr. Hayhoe: Of course morality comes before profit in the Health Service.
No one who heard the exchanges earlier between my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Oldham, West


(Mr. Meacher) on this matter could have failed to hear my right hon. Friend make it abundantly clear that increased resources have been allocated to the National Health Service. That is a clear indication of the Government's priorities.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people absolutely loathe commercial surrogacy and expect the Government to act quickly and not simply have the matter under review?

Mr. Hayhoe: Commercial surrogacy was dealt with in the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. The suggestion now made is that the individual concerned may be falling foul of the Act, in which case no doubt the DPP will take the necessary action. We are considering whether there is a need to amend legislation to take account of these practices, which would not be illegal under the terms of the 1985 Act.

Mr. Dalyell: In the mouths of Ministers of all Governments the phrase "under review" has many parliamentary meanings. Can we expect any end product to this particular review?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in terms of parliamentary language. Certainly when I say that the matter is under review, I mean that it is under review.

Waiting Lists

Mr. Favell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the reasons for variations of waiting lists between regional health authorities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): There is no simple answer to my hon. Friend's question. Variations in waiting lists can be caused by a multiplicity of factors relating to the efficiency with which resources are used and to the resources available in a particular place.

Mr. Favell: In regions where health authorities have failed to get their act together to reduce waiting lists, should not health authorities be forced to contract out medical services? Is my hon. Friend aware that in Wales two private kidney dialysis units have been introduced to help the Health Service and that in the past 12 months the number of kidney patients has increased from 30 per million per head of population to 55 per million, and lives are already being saved?

Mr. Whitney: My hon. Friend has made an important point. Ministers have made it clear that a reduction in waiting lists is an urgent priority for the NHS and the health authorities.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister look into the problems experienced in my constituency? Due to the closure of hospitals that accommodate geriatric patients, those patients have had to be transferred to general hospitals. As a result, the number of beds available for general medical care in those hospitals has been reduced, which has created problems in the Yorkshire region. Will the Minister look into the closure of hospitals in which geriatric patients predominate?

Mr. Whitney: The diversion of resources must be a matter for the decision of local health authorities in the

light of needs. The closure of beds has been the policy of Governments of both parties for some years. However, I am glad to say that under this Government the number of patients treated has increased remarkably.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable improvement in the facilities and nursing beds available at Grantham hospital, and will he welcome that fact? Is he further aware that there is a feeling among medical staff that, because of the shortage of medical staff and under-provision, those facilities are not being fully used? Will he inquire into those complaints to see whether there is any justice in them?

Mr. Whitney: I am glad to hear about the situation in Grantham, and I will certainly look into that latter point.

Mr. Corbett: Is the Minister aware that in the West Midlands regional health authority area, and in Birmingham in particular, people have to wait for up to seven years to get on the waiting list for ear, nose and throat treatment? Moreover, a consultant at the Queen Elizabeth hospital has written to kidney patients virtually telling them that unless they are at death's door, they will not get an operation. What will the Minister do about that?

Mr. Whitney: As I said, we have made it clear that the improvement of waiting times has very high priority. That is why resources are being steadily increased. As the hon. Gentleman may know, a pilot project has been funded in the west midlands to examine the effect of referral practice by providing general practitioners with additional information about waiting times in other districts.

Mrs. Currie: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Southern Derbyshire health authority waiting lists are generally low, which contrasts greatly with waiting lists of over 1,000 gynaecology patients, some of whom have been waiting more than four years? I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that that is totally unacceptable. Is it not time to take another look at the report of the Social Services Committee on medical education, which recommended the appointment of far more consultants? That might attract them back into the hospital service, where the problems now lie.

Mr. Whitney: I welcome the low waiting list in south Derbyshire. The appointment of consultants is a matter for the judgment of the health authorities, and it is not subject to any control exercised from the centre.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister believe that patients themselves should be forced to shop around to find the shortest waiting list? Is he aware that one of my constituents, who needed a hip replacement operation, was told that he would have to wait several years? However, he rang about six area health authorities in England and eventually had his operation at Guy's hospital, London. Is that the sort of Health Service that the Minister believes in? Does he not think that a health authority should help patients to transfer to areas that have shorter waiting lists, so that people are not forced to wait an inordinately long time for operations?

Mr. Whitney: As I have already made clear twice, we are determined to bring down waiting times. I am also glad to note that waiting lists have been significantly reduced during the period that this Government have been in office. I remind the House that in March 1979 waiting lists


stood at 752,000 and that at 30 September 1985 waiting lists had been reduced to 661,000. That is the latest recorded figure.

Mr. Squire: I welcome both the reduction in waiting lists and the much greater efficiency which they has often demonstrated is now abroad within the Health Service. However, does he agree that waiting times of nine months — and years in some cases—are simply unacceptable to people who often are in great pain?

Mr. Whitney: Yes, Sir, but I remind my hon. Friend that entry for hospital operations is virtually immediate in 50 per cent. of cases.

Sir John Farr: As waiting lists can be a matter of life or death, is there not a strong case for linking all the different waiting lists by national computer? Will my hon. Friend look into this question and see what can be done?

Mr. Whitney: We have financed a project in the west midlands to examine this possibility. We are awaiting the outcome of that examination.

Dr. Marek: Despite the completely misleading figures that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends rabbit on about at every available opportunity, the public know that the National Health Service is having cuts imposed upon it by this Government and that waiting lists are unacceptably high. Is not the truth of the matter that the regional health authorities do not know where to turn to continue to provide a proper service? Is it not also true that in the last four to five years we have been suffering from an unacceptably high plateau of waiting lists? Exactly how does the Minister propose to bring them down?

Mr. Whitney: If there are any misleading figures, they come from the Opposition Benches. I have already reminded the House that waiting lists have been reduced under this Government. If the hon. Gentleman would like further accurate figures, I remind him that in 1984 the National Health Service treated over 800,000 more inpatient cases than it treated in 1978, over one third of a million more day cases and over 3 million more our-patient cases.

Family Credit

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received on the intended incentive effect of family credit.

Ms. Clare Short: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultation process is being undertaken on his proposals for family credit.

Mr. Fowler: We have received a number of representations on the incentive effects of family credit, as well as on other matters, as part of the consultation process which began with the issue of the Green Paper last year. More recently, as part of our reconsideration of the payment mechanism for family credit, we have had further discussions with a number of organisations that are closely affected. As already announced, following that reconsideration the Government have decided that family credit will be paid direct, rather than with wages, when the new scheme is introduced in 1988.

Mr. Marlow: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, but will he expand on it a little? If a man goes out to work

and family credit is payable, I understand from what my right hon. Friend says that it will be payable to the mother. If the woman goes out to work and the man stays behind, will family credit be payable to the husband, or do the Government take the view that the housewife is more committed to the welfare of her children than her house husband? If the Government take that sexist view, would they like to clear themselves with the European Court of Justice to save themselves future embarrassment, or do they take the view that the European Court of Justice has no status on this issue, or that, if it has any status, it should not have any such status?

Mr. Fowler: I am glad to be able to reassure my hon. Friend that the position is the same as with family income supplement. I think my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that under the family credit proposals we are providing £200 million extra for low-income families in this country, and we estimate that that will affect about 200,000 additional families.

Ms. Short: Does the Secretary of State admit that the real policy underlying this proposal is to try to force down wage levels by paying family credit through the employer, thereby encouraging employers, in addition to the other methods that the Government are using, to force down the wages of the low paid? Is that not what this is all about?

Mr. Fowler: I think that that is entire rubbish. Had the hon. Lady had more time to reflect on what she was about to say, perhaps she would not have uttered it. We are directing £200 million extra to low-income families. I should have thought that was exactly what anyone of any sense anywhere in the House would want to do.

Mr. Ralph Howell: What is my right hon. Friends latest estimate of the saving that will accrue due to the passing of the Social Security Bill?

Mr. Fowler: I cannot give a figure of that kind at this time.

Mr. Meacher: Now that the Government have been forced to back off from their ill-advised and unpopular proposals, not only on family credit but on SERPS, the 20 per cent. housing benefit cut, discretionary disability payments, the 2 per cent. personal pensions bribe and now social fund appeals, is it not time that the Secretary of State recognised that everywhere outside this wet House of Commons the Bill is universally detested? Now that his last three years' work has crumbled into a ragbag of disconnected cuts without logic or structure, should he not do the honourable thing and either withdraw the Bill or resign?

Mr. Fowler: I think that the hon. Gentleman should know, and perhaps does know, enough about the House of Commons procedure to realise that some of these things will come back and some of these things may be put right. My hon. Friends, in Committee and on Report, if I may say so, having won entirely the argument with the hon. Gentleman on the Social Security Bill, I am bound to say that I think the Bill will do what it set out to do, which is to direct more help to people in real need.

Mr. Yeo: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) says, is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a very warm welcome for the way in which the Government have allowed a change in


the intended method of payment of family credit? This is seen as an example of the Government's flexibility and sensitivity to the needs of this group.

Mr. Fowler: I think that that is right. Had we accepted the amendment tabled on Report by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) we would have had the worst of every conceivable world. We have changed, and I make no apology for that, but what we have not done is to change in the remarkably foolish way that the hon. Gentleman proposed.

Mentally Ill and Mentally Handicapped People

Mr. Allan Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he envisages that a central bridging fund will be established for the development of community care services for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped.

Mr. Hayhoe: The Government have consistently recognised that bridging finance can help to secure the successful transition from one pattern of service to another and regions have been encouraged to plan accordingly. But there has been little real demand from health authorities for a central bridging fund as such to supplement the centrally earmarked resources of joint funding and the care in the community initiatives.

Mr. Roberts: Why does the Minister have a central bridging fund in Wales and not in England? On both sides of the House we all support the concept of the mentally ill and mentally handicapped being cared for in the community rather than in large institutions, but the Government are throwing them out of the institutions and not giving local authorities the money that they need to provide the community facilities to support these people, to house them and to look after them. With cuts in rate support grant and rate capping, the burdens are intolerable. Even Tory-controlled Sefton in my constituency has had its staffing levels turned down by the regional health authority because they are too high. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about it?

Mr. Hayhoe: I reject the absurdly exaggerated comments of the hon. Gentleman. The arrangements in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, and the different arrangements there will he kept under close study by my right hon. Friend and myself.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister look at reports published this week in the Yorkshire Post, which reveal most disturbing circumstances in private nursing homes in Hull, Leeds, and Bradford? Will he examine those reports and make sure that such circumstances are not allowed to recur in other places?

Mr. Hayhoe: I think that disturbing conditions in homes, whether private or public, deserve careful examination.

Mr. Norris: Will my right hon. Friend remember that the Select Committee, which considered the principle of community care laid great store on the provision of bridging finance, bearing in mind that the cost per patient in large institutions rises as those who are transferred leave a smaller number to bear the overhead costs? Will he consult the chairmen of the health regions to ensure that there is a known mechanism for the provision of bridging finance where necessary?

Mr. Hayhoe: These matters are considered in the normal review processes with the region. I am glad to say that more of the regions are making these arrangements. It is also essential that there should be good co-operation between the social services departments of local authorities and district and regional health authorities. Again, I am doing what I can to encourage that co-operation.

Ms. Harman: When will the Minister recognise that the DHSS figure of 2 per cent. per year growth for social services is insufficient to maintain, let alone improve, the standard of services? Is he aware that the Government must now increase that figure, not least to meet the extra cost of community care that is not met by joint finance? Is he further aware that unless the Government do so, the care in the community policy will continue to represent a reduction rather than an increase in support for vulnerable and dependent people who are living in the community?

Mr. Hayhoe: Yes, Sir. Of course I accept the pressures for additional funds. It is worth noting that the national joint financing allocation in 1986–87 was £111 million, an increase in real terms of over 60 per cent. in the figure for the last year of the last Labour Government.

Specialised Operations and Treatments

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will establish an organisation to coordinate demand for specialised operations and treatments, providing for the early distribution of patients to appropriate centres; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Whitney: The Department is already funding a pilot project in the west midlands to assess the effect upon the referral practice of general practitioners of providing them with additional information about waiting times for general surgery in other districts. Any proposals for a wider-ranging system would have to await an assessment of that project.

Mr. Greenway: Assuming the project to be successful, will my hon. Friend consider establishing a national databank containing treatments and operations available so that people who need treatment and operations can he directed immediately to areas where they are available, so reducing waiting lists and talk of non-existent cuts in the Health Service?

Mr. Whitney: We shall consider carefully the results of that project. Quite apart from the outcome of that, as my hon. Friend knows, the reduction of waiting times is a clear priority for the Health Service.

Mr. Pavitt: Does the Minister realise that the referral of patients by general practitioners for specialised operations, and the crisis in acute beds that exists at the moment in the whole of the home counties, means that the time he is spending on the regional survey is not enough? He should consider the way in which the distribution of patients affects the catchment areas of district health authorities and get rid of the system whereby funds are cut purely because of population statistics.

Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman will know that the review of the RAWP formula is just being completed, as my right hon. Friend has advised the House. Part of that study will include the sorts of factors to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Patient Services (Costs)

Mr. Galley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information is available to his Department about comparative unit costs for providing patient services in different health authority areas and different hospitals.

Mr. Hayhoe: Unit costs are reported to the Department annually for each hospital in England and for other services. Summaries of these costs for the regions and for England are published. In addition, the performance indicators published by the Department include detailed information about unit costs, which health authorities can use to compare their own performance with that of other districts.

Mr. Galley: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that unit costs for private patient services in some parts of London are 30 per cent. higher than in the regions, even taking account of the London weighting factor? Will he make more readily available in published form the comprehensive comparative information about efficiency so that we may know which are inefficient and uncaring authorities and which authorities care enough to make the best use of their resources?

Mr. Hayhoe: Yes, I shall certainly consider the possibility of publishing these figures. In regard to the comparison between London and the rest of the country, in the large acute hospitals of over 300 beds the highest average cost per in-patient case is in the North-West Thames region, where it is £901. That compares with a figure for the Oxford region, the lowest, of £579, and for Yorkshire, the second lowest, of £602. The English average is £714. That shows the higher costs in the Thames region, which are partly explained by London weighting and the concentration of more expensive types of cases being treated in those hospitals.

Mr. Ashton: If all those statistics are available to answer what seems to be a planted question, why is it that the Minister, when I put down written questions about my area, says that I should ask Trent regional health authority? Why is it that he can supply those statistics when he feels like it, but, every time Opposition Members ask questions about statistics and comparisons, we are referred to the regional health authorities?

Mr. Hayhoe: The figures that I have given are published figures that can be found in the Library of the House.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that costs and services in Solihull will be greatly improved by the decision to give us a district general hospital? Will he acept the appreciation of the people of Solihull for that decision?

Mr. Hayhoe: Yes, indeed. It is important that we take note of the considerable progress being made in many areas in improving health care facilities by the application of RAWP policies.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q.1 Mr. Hirst: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I was present at Victoria station to meet President

von Weizsacker of the Federal Republic of Germany at the start of his state visit to this country. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall attend a state banquet at Buckingham palace in honour of the President of Germany.

Mr. Hirst: Has my right hon. Friend found time since her return from The Hague to read a major policy speech by the Secretary of State for Energy, in which he predicted that the world faces a severe energy crisis and shortage if nuclear power is discontinued? Does she agree that he iis right to stress the importance of vigorous action by the international community to secure the highest standards of safety, design and operation of nuclear power? Will she contrast his responsible lead with the foolishness of the Opposition, who believe that nuclear power may be dangerous and would take 30 years to phase it out?

The Prime Minister: I read that most excellent speech and commend it to all who have not read it, and those who have read it to read it again. It set out an excellent basis for nuclear policy. It pointed out the importance of nuclear power, and I should have thought that right hon. and hon. Members would welcome it. It was a source of energy pioneered in this country and, rather than denigrate it, we should develop it.

Mr. Soley: As the Prime Minister was understandably moved when she visited the memorial to the holocaust in Israel, and bearing in mind that those terrible events came about as a result of one racial group trying to dominate another, when will she stop trying to appease the South. African Government?

The Prime Minister: The last part of the question does not follow from the first. May I make it clear that this country believes in defending its freedom, and I wish that the Labour party would do the same.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend find time during her busy day to reflect on wIlether she knows of any examples of countries securing their objectives by imposing sanctions? If she cannot, does she believe that the Leader of the Opposition might be able to do so?

The Prime Minister: I know of no country where sanctions have been effective as an instrument to bring about internal change. That is the point in this case. Sanctions have never brought about internal change.

Mr. Beith: Could a Government Minister be in a weaker position than to know when he negotiates with a foreign Government that his Government back home have not the political will to take action when he returns empty-handed? Is that not the lesson? That was the position in which Chamberlain put himself when he went to Munich.

The Prime Minister: The Government do not believe in general economic sanctions; the Labour Government did not believe in general economic sanctions when they were in power; the European Community does not believe in general economic sanctions; the leader of the SDP does not believe in general economic sanctions; the deputy


leader of the Labour party does not believe in general economic sanctions. The hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition are isolated if they do.

Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend spare a moment during her busy day to consider something that many people do believe in — the launch of community radio in Britain? Will she accept that many people are disappointed by the postponement of that launch, which is the essence of radio broadcasting success elsewhere?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made a statement about that. His decision was right and I believe that it will be generally supported.

Mr. Kinnock: On the day on which the Royal College of Physicians has published further conclusive evidence of the strong links between poverty, illness and early death, will the Prime Minister give us an undertaking that, in order not to add further to the pressures on the poor, she will accept the defeats inflicted on her Social Security Bill in the House of Lords?

The Prime Minister: I accept that in some cases the report on health and community medicine said that experience in Britain has not been as good as in other Western countries, although it has been a jolly sight better than it was under Labour. In other areas we are ahead. For example, the British figure for infant mortality, while not as good as a number of countries, is still better than that of Germany, the United States, Belgium and Austria, and life expectancy at birth in Britain is higher than that in France, Belgium, Germany and the United States. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will read the whole report.
Events in the other place are matters for consideration later.

Mr. Kinnock: That is an interesting answer, Mr. Speaker, but is the right hon. Lady aware that the number of people—old people, families and disabled people—in poverty has doubled under her Government? Does she realise that if she does not accept the changes to the Bill, 4 million people will be pushed deeper into poverty and placed under greater pressure as a result of the measures of her Government? Will she accept that if that occurs they will not only suffer greater poverty but greater risk of ill-health and early death? Is that what the family party wants?

The Prime Minister: The record of the Government on health, pensions and supplementary benefit is excellent. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that if he defines poverty as being equal to supplementary benefit, every time that supplementary benefit is increased in real terms, which the Government have done, those in poverty increase. If we wanted technically to reduce the numbers in poverty we would put down the level of supplementary benefit to where it was under the Labour Government.

Mr. Butterfill: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Butterfill: When my right hon. Friend meets the President of the Federal German Republic, will she express to him the horror and the sympathy of this House at the news that 12 of his compatriots were brutally murdered by East German border guards the other day? Will she

express to him our regret that the Soviet Union continues to deploy 17 divisions in East Germany, propping up a puppet regime so repugnant to its own people that they are prepared to die to get away from it?

The Prime Minister: We have read the reports of the tragic incident to which my hon. Friend refers, but we are not in a position to confirm or deny it, for obvious reasons. It reminds us of our duty to maintain the four-power status of Berlin, and, in particular, the freedom of West Berlin— a duty which we shall honour. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing the address of the President of the Federal Republic tomorrow.

Mr. Ernie Ross: On a day when men of 90 years of age are demonstrating in another part of the world the futility of a war that should never have taken place, will the right hon. Lady give a guarantee to the House that our presidency of the European Council will be used to ensure that peace is extended throughout Europe and the rest of the world?

The Prime Minister: I am certain that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who will be President of the Foreign Affairs Council, will carry out the job with great distinction.

Mr. Alexander: Will my right hon. Friend consider, in the course of the day, adding to the respect and affection in which she is widely held in the country —[Interruption]—by recommending to those with authority in these matters that the royal wedding day should be declared a public holiday?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We are acting in accordance with precedent in not declaring the day a public holiday, but I am sure that it will he a very happy day for everyone.

Mr. Wallace: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wallace: I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware that over £4 billion a year is spent on housing benefit, but is she aware that some private landlords are claiming, as direct payment of housing benefit, sums in excess of what would have been adjudicated a fair rent? Does the right hon. Lady not accept that that is a fraud on the taxpayer? Does she not think that, where public money is involved, all rents should be registered?

The Prime Minister: If excessive sums are claimed for housing benefit, or through supplementary benefit, the matter should be referred to the appropriate authorities, which will deal with it.

Mr. Chope: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Chope: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to give a warm welcome to the national launch of the job restart scheme, which is the most far-reaching and imaginative scheme of its kind in Europe?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The job restart scheme has been generally welcomed by all who are interested in


trying to help the long-term unemployed find a job. The pilot schemes were very successful, and the scheme has now been extended to the whole country. I believe that most people will welcome its operation and that it will help most people who have hitherto been unemployed.

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hamilton: Has the right hon. Lady taken time to study the System Three poll report that was carried out in Scotland, which states that one person in four in Scotland is bitterly opposed to the administration of the Health Service in Scotland? Is the right hon. Lady aware that one in three people have stated quite categorically that they disagree with the privatising of the ancillary services? Will she now align her Government with the people of Scotland, who are bitterly opposed to her Administration and have voted solidly against the Tory Government in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: More is spent per person on the Health Service in Scotland than is spent south of the border. I believe that far more is spent under this Government and that there is far better patient service in Scotland, more doctors and more nurses, than under the previous Administration. I believe that in general most people in Scotland are very grateful for the Health Service.

Mr. Latham: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Latham: Would we need all these difficult decisions on defence spending if untold billions of pounds had not been wasted over the years by the Ministry of Defence on weapons systems on which there is hopeless overspending and which then do not work? Will my right hon. Friend read the reports of the Public Accounts Committee and ensure that the fullest possible backing is given to Mr. Peter Levene in giving the whole sleepy system a jolly good shake-up?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is aware of the enormous increases in expenditure on defence under the present Government. I agree with him that it is absolutely vital to secure effective expenditure on those resources and

in particular to have regard to competition in procurement. I will pass on my hon. Friend's excellent message.

Mr. Wigley: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wigley: In view of the Prime Minister's belief that she should enter negotiations about disarmament from a position of strength, why is she willing for her Government to enter negotiations with the South African Government from a position of weakness, without any threat of sanctions whatsoever? Will the Prime Minister tell the House when she is going to stop appeasing apartheid?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is a little confused. We are not talking about a battle in defence with South Africa—[HON. MEMBERS: "We are."]

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Reverting to the question of South Africa, would the Prime Minister accept that, while there is very considerable support for the Foreign Secretary on his mission, if the South African Government fail to introduce major concessions as a result of that mission we would look to Her Majesty's Government to introduce additional measures as a mark of our great disapproval of what is going on in South Africa?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is aware that we have already introduced some measures first, as a result of an earlier Community meeting and then as a result of a Commonwealth meeting. I am sure that he will join me in saying that we hope that my right hon. and learned Friend's mission as the President of the Twelve in Europe will meet with success. Then we can reconsider the position.

Mr. Allen McKay: While the Prime Minister is talking about the record, would she like to put on record and comment on the fact that the rules of guidance delivered to social security officers have deprived miners' widows and miners who are sick and injured of £2 to £3 a week, as the concessionary coal allowance must now be considered in rent rebates?

The Prime Minister: As I said when the matter first came up, I am not aware of any changes in the instructions that have been given by the Government to those officers. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, if there is any dispute it can be taken to an appeal tribunal, of which I am sure his constituents will avail themselves.

European Council

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the European Council of 26–27 June, which I attended together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The conclusions of the Council have been placed in the Library of the House.
The Council concentrated on five main issues: the situation in South Africa; the creation of jobs within the Community; the completion of the Common Market; the international aspects of agriculture; and concerted action in the light of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl.
On South Africa the European Council expressed its grave concern at the imposition of censorship and the reimposition of the state of emergency by the South African Government and, more generally, at the deteriorating situation in the country at large. It reaffirmed that the goal of the Twelve is the total abolition of apartheid. It also agreed on a concerted programme of financial and material assistance from the Community and member Governments to the victims of apartheid, in particular those affected by the disturbances in Crossroads, and to political prisoners, including those arrested under the recent state of emergency.
In our own case we shall be making available a further £15 million over five years, mainly for education and training of non-white South Africans, and additional help for transport projects in neighbouring states. This is in addition to the £22 million which we are already giving.
The Council called for the opening without delay of negotiations between the South African Government and leaders of the black people in South Africa. To make such a dialogue possible, it called on the South African Government unconditionally to release Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners and to lift the ban on the African National Congress and other political parties. The Council also agreed that the Community should in the next three months enter into consultations with other industrialised countries on further measures which might be needed, covering a ban on new investment, and the import of coal, iron, steel and gold coins from South Africa.
Finally, the Council asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, in his capacity as President of the Foreign Ministers of the Twelve from today, to visit southern Africa in a further effort to establish conditions in which the necessary negotiations can commence.
On job creation, the European Council welcomed the programme put forward by the United Kingdom and some other member states for creating the conditions for employment growth. This calls for the job-creating capacity of small businesses to be maximised by reducing the burden of unnecessary regulations: for improved training; and for measures to help the long-term unemployed back into work. We want to see greater attention given to those matters within the Community and priority given to them in the operation of the social fund. This will be of particular value to the United Kingdom. Our proposals were clearly reflected in the Council's conclusions. We shall concentrate of implementing them during the United Kingdom's Presidency.
On the Common Market, the European Council urged more rapid decisions if the timetable of completing removal of the barriers to a genuine single market in the Community by 1992 is to be achieved. This will be another priority for the United Kingdom presidency because of the contribution which completion of the Market can make to creating jobs.
The Council selected some areas for early progress which are of particular interest to the United Kingdom, such as liberalisation of transport and of capital movements. On agriculture, the European Council recognised, as had the economic summit Seven in Tokyo, the need to look at agricultural subsidies and protectionism on a worldwide basis. It agreed that the problem of agricultural trade must be dealt with in the forthcoming round of international trade negotiations; that agricultural production in the European Community should be better adjusted to the market situation so that the share of public expenditure claimed by agriculture can be reduced; and that there should be bilateral discussions with other major agricultural suppliers to try to eliminate the problems of chronic surpluses and competitive subsidies.
The Council discussed the lessons to be learned from the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. It agreed on the need for better international collaboration on nuclear safety under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency. It called for general contamination tolerance levels for the Community to be established quickly on a scientific basis. The Council recognised that nuclear power would continue to have a vital role in meeting energy needs in the Community in future.
The Council also called for rapid progress on the easing of restrictions on passenger traffic across Community frontiers; on mutual recognition of professional qualifications; and on the action programme against cancer. It welcomed the intention of the British presidency to hold a conference of Interior Ministers in the autumn to discuss ways of improving the Community's defences against terrorism, drug trafficking and illegal immigration. This European Council set useful priorities for the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Community over the next six months, particularly in the creation of jobs.
The Council adopted a positive and constructive approach to the bitterly difficult problem of South Africa. We are well aware of the magnitude of the task facing my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in the mission on which he embarks, but all who genuinely want a peaceful solution will wish him well.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I can at least endorse the Prime Minister's last sentence. We wish the Foreign Secretary well and regret that the actions of the Prime Minister herself have added hugely to the magnitude of the Foreign Secretary's task. Is it not shamefully obvious that in The Hague last week the Prime Minister was continuing her Nassau habit of first participating in an agreement at a Heads of Government conference and then using the first press conference to rat on that agreement?
Does the Prime Minister recall that the Eminent Persons Group, including her nominee, Lord Barber, gave the clear view that
the Botha regime is not prepared to negotiate fundamental change",
has
moved consciously away from any realistic negotiating process


and has been
moving in the opposite direction
from lifting bans on political organisations?
Does the Prime Minister not further recognise that the members of the EPG concluded that they could not
see merit in further discussions
and said:
the Government of South Africa made it impossible for us to proceed further"?
In the mere four weeks since the EPG wrote that, what has changed in South Africa other than the passing of two further Acts of tyrannical legislation, the imposition of totalitarian controls on reporting, thousands more detentions and disappearances, and at least 100 more violent deaths?
Against that background, why does the Prime Minister believe that the Foreign Secretary can succeed with pleading where so many others have signally failed over the past few years? Can she not recognise, as the EPG recognised, that the absence of sanctions measures defers change and accelerates the descent into violence? Does she not recognise that her resistance to action does not reduce violence but makes it even more certain, both inside South Africa and against South Africa's neighbouring states? Is she aware that the mission of the Foreign Secretary might be more credible if she did not have a record as the appeaser of apartheid? By her record she has ensured that she, and the Foreign Secretary are seen as nothing more than glove puppets without even the weapon of sanctions to back up the views of the EEC?
I must ask the Prime Minister a question which is in the minds of many people, of all colours, in many countries: if the atrocities of apartheid were committed by a black minority against a white majority, would she respond to that horror and injustice with obstruction and evasion as she is at present? In these matters, those who stand aside, like the Prime Minister, stand condemned.

The Prime Minister: The decision taken at The Hague last week was a decision of 12 nations of the Community. They were united on the position. Our approach remains to promote peaceful change in South Africa. The mission of my right hon. and learned Friend has that objective. It was supported by all 12 nations of the Community and it should be supported by every hon. Member.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about sanctions. The last Labour Government in power were against sanctions. The present responsible Governments of all 12 nations are also against sanctions. The deputy leader of the Labour party is against sanctions. Sanctions have never been known to bring about internal change. Sanctions in Rhodesia did not bring about internal change. The matter had to be resolved by negotiation. My right hon. and learned Friend will try to help to resolve the matter by negotiation. All people of good will will wish him well.

Sir Peter Tapsell: In view of Britain's unique position in being, simultaneously, a member of the Security Council, the General Assembly, the EEC, the Commonwealth, and the Anglo-American alliance, is it not clear that my right hon. Friend is particularly well placed to play a constructive role in advising southern Africa on her affairs, and that she is wise to continue as she has in this long historical process — to retain her room for manoeuvre and negotiation at this stage rather than to indulge in the empty posturings of some right hon. Gentlemen opposite?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Mandatory sanctions were imposed on Rhodesia for nearly 15 years. They did not bring about internal change. They have never been known to bring about internal change.

Ms. Clare Short: What did?

The Prime Minister: The matter of Rhodesia had to be resolved by negotiations. How much better it would be to try to embark on negotiations now and to bend one's efforts to persuading the South African Government that that would be the wise course.

Dr. David Owen: Does not the Prime Minister accept that there is a widespread view in the Commonwealth and in the other western industrialised countries that some sanctions need to be applied; the question is, what sanctions? Since the Prime Minister believes in negotiating from strength with the Soviet Union, why does she believe in negotiating from weakness with President Botha?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that we are negotiating from weakness in any way. Certain measures have been taken against South Africa. Certain contingency plans outlined in the communiqué are being made. We are not negotiating from weakness. We are negotiating in a way which we believe will have the best chance of success. We do not think that threatening further sanctions immediately or automatically will help to bring about the negotiations that we desire between the South African Government and the representatives of the black South African people?

Mr. Michael Grylls: My right hon. Friend spent a lot of time, rightly, in the summit considering the question of creating new jobs in the Community and reducing unemployment. Has it occurred to her that if she had allowed the Community to take trade and industrial sanctions, they would have reduced jobs in Britain as well as jobs for moderate blacks in South Africa? That would be the arch-hypocritical position to follow. Will my right hon. Friend keep up her good work, maintain her stand, and do everything she can to encourage the South African Government to keep up the momentum of internal reform which they have already started?

The Prime Minister: We shall follow my hon. Friend's advice. If there were ever any question of going for total economic sanctions, such measures would cause much more unemployment here and in South Africa as well as other fundamental strategic problems, putting the supply of raw materials into the hands of the Soviet Union and causing strategic defence problems. It would not bring about the change which we all wish to see.

Mr. Guy Barnett: As the right hon. Lady clearly regards economic sanctions as almost totally ineffective in putting pressure on the South African regime, why does she not recommend the use of force?

The Prime Minister: I do not recommend the use of force. I recommend the use of negotiation. Is the use of force now the policy of the Labour party?

Sir Ian Lloyd: Did the Council at any stage in the Brussels discussions attempt to define precisely what it meant by the abolition of apartheid? Did it mean merely the abolition of the appalling legislation to which the


Leader of the Opposition referred and the legislation which has appeared on the statute book since 1948, or did the definition imply that the standard of living—social, economic and political—of 20 million people should be raised in a short time to that of 5 million people? If it was the latter, surely it is a resource-intensive problem, unprecedented in scale, which will require billions, not millions, of pounds in aid? Is the West prepared to put its money where its mouth is?

The Prime Minister: In wanting to get rid of apartheid, we wish to get rid of the appalling difficulties which the black South Africans are made to suffer by virtue of the colour of their skin. The results of negotiations on a new constitution for South Africa would, of course, be a matter for those who took part in them. We should like to see those negotiations start. We should like them to succeed against a background of keeping the economic success of South Africa which exists now.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the right hon. Lady failing or refusing to see the obvious parallels between the South African regime today and the regime in Germany in the mid-1930s, with its belief in no democracy, no free speech, a super-race, inferior citizens and police repression? Will the right hon. Lady recognise that her appeasement—that is what it is—which is using almost precisely the same excuses as were used in 1938 and 1939, will be received with the same amused contempt in Pretoria as Chamberlain's appeasement was in Germany?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that many of us find a parallel in that. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be pursuing the previous question and wanting us to embark on force against South Africa. That might be the new Labour policy; it is not ours.

Sir John Farr: Despite all the pressure which my right hon. Friend will be under in the coming weeks to apply sanctions against South Africa, will she bear in mind that sanctions not only did not work in Rhodesia but, during that time, strengthened that country's economy?

The Prime Minister: I believe that that is so. There could be no way in which economic sanctions would work in South Africa, with its enormous coastline and with considerable numbers of countries and people who would bend all their efforts to conducting trade with South Africa which other countries would forgo. We should be embarking upon the whole thing for nothing. We should have more unemployment here, only to see the jobs picked up elsewhere. It would damage the cause of black South Africans, the economy of South Africa and the prospect of a peaceful South Africa finally emerging.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: The Prime Minister has announced that the Secretary of State must make two specific demands: first, the freedom of Nelson Mandela and, secondly, the legitimisation of the African National Congress. Will that be the Foreign Secretary's remit when he goes to South Africa?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course, in accordance with the communique which states:
In this context the European Council calls on the South African government:
— to unconditionally release Nelson Mandela and the other political prisoners;

— to lift the ban on the African National Congress, the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania and other political parties.
In the meantime in the next three months the Community will enter into consultations".
That was clearly and explicitly set out in the communique. Many of us believe that that is the key to getting negotiations started, which is what most of us desire.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the criticism that is frequently levelled against her for her uncaring attitude to peoples of the world and especially people of this country, in this instance she is showing an understanding of the reality of the position in southern Africa which should be appreciated by many other countries in the world? Would she sustain her opposition to sanctions, which will help nobody in this country or in South Africa? Will she use her ability to negotiate and consult, which the Opposition so often advise Her Majesty's Government to use when dealing with the Soviet Union and other such countries, as the basis of progress in what can be achieved towards the reform that we require in the Republic of South Africa?

The Prime Minister: We shall maintain our opposition to general economic sanctions on the basis that they would not produce the changes in South Africa that we would like to see. We shall maintain our efforts to get negotiations going because we believe that they would produce the results, if they could be got going, that we too want to see in abolishing apartheid and having a strong economy in South Africa.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Prime Minister referred to the liberalisation of capital movements. Will she tell the House what she and the Council had in mind?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that from this country we have liberalisation of capital movements. That is not so with regard to some other countries in the European Economic Community, some of which still maintain controls on their foreign exchange movements. A number of us do not and we wish to have free movement of capital throughout the Community.

Mr. John Browne: Would my right hon. Friend accept that any peaceful solution in South Africa must, in the end, be acceptable to those in power? If so, why does she support proposals that offer no protection whatsoever to the white or coloured minorities rather than proposals for a universal franchise based on cantonal power that would offer protection to the minorities, and therefore be acceptable to those in power and have at least a chance of a peaceful solution?

The Prime Minister: May I make our view clear? It was a view also accepted by the Commonwealth at Nassau. It is not for us or anyone else to say what arrangements would come out of those negotiations for the protection of minorities and what would result from a wider constitutional convention. The arrangements will not be decided until the negotiations start. We believe that we may be able to help in promoting those negotiations. That was the view the Commonwealth took. Once they are promoted, it will be for all the people of South Africa—the black South Africans, the white South Africans, the Indians and the Cape coloureds— to decide on the future constitution they would like.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Why is it that the Prime Minister answers all the questions about


sanctions with a condemnation of general or total sanctions without reference to specific sanctions? Is that an accidental confusion on her part or is she preserving her room for manoeuvre so that she can support specific economic sanctions if they are recommended by the Foreign Secretary on his return?

The Prime Minister: Ah—so the hon. Gentleman is against general economic sanctions as well. We are getting somewhere. The hon. Gentleman is against general economic sanctions, but he may be in favour of selective sanctions. A number of selective and particular sanctions are already in place, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, through the action of the Community. [Interruption.] I hear the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) interrupting. When the right hon. Gentleman was in the Labour Government he wanted to sell defence weapons to South Africa.

Mr. Denis Healey: No! Absolute nonsense!

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call the right hon. Gentleman at the end.

The Prime Minister: Perhaps I may finish. The Crossman diaries, in dealing with whether armaments should be sold to South Africa, which I understand the then Prime Minister was very much against, said:
George Brown began the attack saying that though he realized it was very painful one couldn't really go on being so unrealistic about the sale of arms. He was then supported by Denis Healey, who said one must surely make a distinction between arms which could be used for suppressing insurrection … and strategic arms—That is to say, the Air Force and the Navy which are needed for our own Commonwealth interests. He said we need the Simonstown base to be kept going by Soul .h Africa in our own interest and therefore we should sell South Africa maritime arms but not arms for domestic use.
If the right hon. Member for Leeds, East denies that, I will be happy to accept his denial.

Hon. Members: Answer!

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend agree that, while we all abhor the situation in South Africa—

Ms. Clare Short: No, you do not.

Mr. McLoughlin: —in relation to apartheid in South Africa, many people in this country believe—I hope that the Council of Ministers considered this — that we should not forget the abuses of human rights in other countries, such as the Soviet Union, which has invaded Afghanistan? Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister bear that point in mind when she considers these issues abroad?

The Prime Minister: We are very much aware of the abuses of human rights and of the problems elsewhere in the Commonwealth. We still wish to be instrumental in trying to bring about the end of apartheid in South Africa and to bring about negotiations which will maintain the economic success of South Africa, to the benefit of the people there and to the rest of Southern Africa, which benefits tremendously from the success of the South African economy. That is the view which we will continue to pursue.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: How does the Prime Minister explain the fact that the great majority of

the British people and almost all members of the Commonwealth believe that she is the greatest friend in the West of the barbaric Government in South Africa? How does she hope to persuade the Commonwealth in August that she is on the right course?

The Prime Minister: As I said, the mission which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs undertakes when he travels to South Africa in an attempt to establish conditions under which negotiations can be brought about, is in a way a continuation of the Nassau mission which was very nearly successful. The Eminent Persons Group made much progress and it is the wish of the:12 countries of the Community that our Foreign Secretary should go to South Africa to represent them. I would have thought that that should be a matter of pride for this country.

Mr. Julian Amery: Will my right hon. Friend agree that, while personalities and parties are significant in these matters, the dismantling of apartheid really calls for the removal of the Group Areas Act and the inclusion of representative black Africans in the political process? Will my right hon. Friend ask her right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to concentrate on those two principles rather than on personalities and parties?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend about the removal of the Group Areas Act. That is absolutely crucial. I also agree that black South Africans should take part in the process of government. My right hon. and learned Friend's task was defined in paragraph 6 of the Communiqué.
The European Council decided to ask the UK Presidency Foreign Minister to visit southern Africa, in a further effort to establish conditions in which the necessary dialogue can commence.
That is my right hon. and learned Friend's particular role, not to specify what should happen when negotiations commence.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, like her hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, she personally supports one person, one vote, black majority rule in South Africa?

The Prime Minister: I have already said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes or no?"]—that what comes out of the negotiations is not for us to determine. We will attempt to bring about the negotiations which we believe will lead to a system of government in South Africa that is acceptable to all people of whatever background.

Mr. John Carlisle: Should not my right hon. Friend's brave initiative and the lifeline that she has now offered to all South African people be welcomed by Conservative Members, the public, and in particular by those in South Africa? Do they not contrast sharply with the words of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who is deliberately stirring up violence and racial hatred in South Africa through his comments? Will she advise my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to look for more positive measures and that if progress is slow, the gun should not be held at the head of the South African Government by saying that economic sanctions will be imposed at the end of the day?

The Prime Minister: I have already outlined the role of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. I agree that the Opposition are behaving disgracefully in trying to undermine his mission.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the Prime Minister not understand that Governments who wish to negotiate with their own people do not imprison every leader with whom they could talk, and do not impose public order Acts, making it impossible for anyone to speak on behalf of any section of the black community? Does she not understand that her hypocrisy is totally unacceptable to many people in this country?

The Prime Minister: The decision to which I have referred was a decision made by 12 countries of the Community. They recognised in the communiqué that a dialogue cannot take place as long as recognised leaders of the black community are detained and their organisations are proscribed. That is why the communique went on to make statements about the release of Nelson Mandela and about lifting the ban on the African National Congress as being the view of 12 Community countries. There are, of course, many black leaders in addition to those who are detained, but if a dialogue is to take place, those who are detained should also be released and could take part in the negotiations. I had hoped that the hon. Lady might think that the views of 12 countries were worthy of consideration and of following up.

Mr. Michael Alison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), use the word "hypocrisy" about my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. May I suggest that you ask her to withdraw it?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear that, but the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is a respected parliamentarian, and if she used that word, I am sure that she would wish to withdraw it.

Mrs. Dunwoody: My respect for you, Mr. Speaker, is very great; I withdraw the word "hypocrisy" and substitute for it "a total lack of standards".

Several Hon. Members: rose— —

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must bear in mind that there is another statement this afternoon, followed by a ten-minute Bill, an application under Standing Order No. 10 and an important debate. Accordingly, I shall allow questions on this statement to continue for a further eight minutes. We must then move on.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: When my right hon. Friend was in The Hague, did she have a chance to consider the recent poll of blacks in South Africa, which showed that 76 per cent. of them were against the present violence? Does she agree that the Shadow Foreign Secretary's failure to meet Chief Buthelezi, who is the representative of many millions of blacks in South Africa, was a grave omission, and indicative of his bias and narrow mindedness?

The Prime Minister: It was because we were anxious to avoid a further escalation of violence that the 12 countries wished negotiations to be entered into. That is why they asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to go. I am sure that most people in South Africa are overwhelming against violence. They want to see change brought about peacefully, with a successful

economy in South Africa. I agree about the importance of talking to Chief Buthelezi, who represents the largest group of black South Africans—about 7 million Zulus.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Chief Buthelezi represents a very significant section of black opinion in South Africa? If so, in the difficult weeks ahead, will she bear in mind his speech last weekend, when he said that it was not in the interests of South Africa or of black people in that country to introduce mandatory sanctions?

The Prime Minister: I believe that that is the view held by many, and probably by the majority of, South Africans, when they realise just how much poverty and hardship sanctions would cause to almost all people in South Africa. It would be a very retrograde step,that would bring hardship there and here. It is not a moral but an immoral solution.

Mr. David Winnick: Has the Prime Minister any idea how much she has disgraced and humiliated the reputation and honour of this country by her appalling behaviour over South Africa? Is it any wonder that she is held in such great respect by the South African authorities, when they know that on every occasion she can be relied on in western Europe to resist measures to upset and undermine their tyranny? Is it any wonder that some people compare her with one of her predecessors, who could always be relied on in the 1930s to do anything to comfort Nazism, and who was known as the most notorious appeaser of his time?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is trying hard, but he is uttering the sternest of strictures against Socialist Governments in Europe, who wholeheartedly agree with the conclusion that we have just reached. Socialist Governments in power, even Socialist Governments in Britain, have also come out against mandatory economic sanctions. As the deputy Leader of the Opposition said when he was in a position of responsibility—which I hope he will never be again—
I do not believe that a policy of general economic sanctions would be in the interests either of the British people or of South Africa." —[Official Report, 7 July 1976; Vol. 914, c. 1354.]

Mr. Frank Field: When the Prime Minister is searching for effective selective sanctions, will she bear in mind an instance when such sanctions were effective? I refer to the fact that the Americans were prepared to use sanctions against Britain at the time of Suez, and that that led, within days, to a reversal of our policy.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be the first to realise that South Africa's position is totally and utterly different. South Africa has enormous internal resources of agricultural products and materials, and could go on maintaining itself. It could sell its raw materials and finished products through third countries while still maintaining quite a good bit of trade.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: As everyone knows that my right hon. Friend hates apartheid and wants to see it brought to an early end, and as everyone understands her view that economic sanctions may not prove effective, is there not an even greater duty on her and the British Government to propose positive alternative steps in order to bring that evil doctrine and detestable regime to an early end?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that we proposed positive steps to help the black South Africans. The sum of £22 million is already being disbursed in South Africa and in the front-line states in order to help black South Africans with education and to supply alternative transport routes. We are adding to that about £15 million as a positive way of helping those whom we wish to help most.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: At the Council meeting, did the Prime Minister take the opportunity to contrast her approval of the South African regime by not imposing sanctions against it, with her refusal to condemn the United States for its act of war against the people of Nicaragua? Are not the utmost double standards at work if she is prepared to support apartheid but not to do anything to prevent the democratic Government of Nicaragua from being overthrown?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are trying to help to bring apartheid to an end in South Africa through negotiation. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman was in favour of peaceful change and would have noticed that there have been some movements that deserve his applause. I refer, for example, to bringing to an end forced resettlements and getting rid of the morality laws. The hon. Gentleman goes on about Nicaragua, but he knows that the Nicaraguan Government have decided to implement the existing state of emergency more severely, and have just closed the main independent newspaper.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening to the questions, not to what is going on below the Gangway.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend provide some balance and try to show that a vast number of matters other than South Africa are debated and dealt with at The Hague? Will she assure the House that, during the six months of Britain's presidency, we shall massively

pursue the need to attempt to establish international standards for nuclear energy safety, both by the establishment of nuclear energy plants and by the reporting of nuclear energy accidents? This is of major importance for the whole world.

The Prime Minister: We discussed the Chernobyl accident and decided to pursue our efforts to improve the safety of nuclear installations through the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the only authority that has the requisite power to deal with the safety of nuclear installations. As to the safety of those who work in nuclear installations, we shall pursue that matter through the Community, under article 3 of the Euratom treaty.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: Will not the Prime Minister accept that, by her actions at The Hague, she has bought time for herself, not for South Africa? Will she not futher accept that, as a first step towards full economic sanctions, financial sanctions on a debtor country such as South Africa will push Pretoria to negotiate and ultimately bring about democracy in that country.

The Prime Minister: I am not at all sure what, precisely, the hon. Lady is proposing. The retaliation on the resources that belong to other countries inside South Africa that would result from the hon. Lady's proposal could give an enormous financial benefit to South Africa.

Mr. Allan Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take the points of order at the end, in the usual place.

Mr. Roberts: It will be too late then.

Mr. Speaker: Order. the hon. Gentleman will have to wait.

Mr. Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Transport Council

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Moore): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the meeting of Transport Ministers which took place in Luxembourg on 30 June and which discussed road haulage and aviation. In advance of the Council I submitted to the Select Committees on European Legislation last week an explanatory memorandum about a Community standard for drive axle weights. I was most grateful to them for their speedy response, and this statement responds to the suggestion that, following the Council, I should report progress to the House.
On road haulage, the Council agreed on a Community standard of 11·5 tonnes for the drive axle of five and sixaxled vehicles, to apply from 1992. As the House may recall, a 1984 directive set agreed standards for most of the weights and dimensions for road haulage vehicles operating between Community countries. The drive axle weight for these larger vehicles was left outstanding, with a requirement that it should be agreed as a matter of urgency. This is the decision which has now been taken.
As in the case of the earlier directive, which set some overall vehicle weights which exceeded our maximum of 38 tonnes, I was able successfully to negotiate, a derogation of unspecified length for the United Kingdom, to enable us to keep our current drive axle weight maximum of 10·5 tonnes. The directive states categorically that the duration of this derogation will be decided by unanimity, which means that our agreement is needed to what is decided. As my predecessor made clear, we remain committed to the undertaking that there should be no increase in the maximum weight until Parliament agrees and our roads are suitable.
To accompany the agreement on a drive axle weight standard, we successfully obtained Council agreement on the main lines of the way forward to full international road haulage liberalisation within the Community. First, and most important, the Council agreed on a cumulative increase in the Community quota of 40 per cent. per annum between now and 1992. Community permits are valid throughout the Community, giving road haulage vehicles valuable freedom to travel in any Community country. This will therefore provide new opportunities for our hauliers to compete freely on equal terms, and will progressively liberate them from the cumbersome bureaucracy of the present bilateral permit system.
Secondly, it was agreed that, while bilateral quotas exist, they will be adjusted to meet traffic needs, including the full requirements of transit traffic. Thirdly, the Council confirmed that from the end of 1992 the bilateral permit system will disappear altogether. The detailed arrangements to implement these principles will now be worked out within the Community, and our aim will be to finalise the necessary Community instruments so far as possible by the end of our presidency.
On aviation, the meeting confirmed that there remains a wide divergence of views, but the Council agreed on two important principles. First, there needs to be a package of measures to promote increased competition, covering market entry, air fares and the capacity that airlines can operate. Secondly, these measures are elements in the process of completing the internal market by 1992.
As with road haulage, there will need to be a gradual movement to fully liberal arrangements, but the need to complete that process by the end of 1992 has been established.
These are useful starting points. There remains a great deal to be done, and we must not underestimate the difficulties that lie ahead. My aim in the British presidency, which starts today, will be to build on these basic principles and, if possible, to reach agreement on the content of a first stage in the process towards the 1992 target. But success in this will depend on whether member states collectively are willing to put aside the restrictive practices to which they are accustomed. I put this question to the Council but did not get a clear answer. I shall need to pursue it during the British presidency. If the answer is that, despite the principles agreed yesterday, member states are not willing to make the effort, they will have to accept that the alternative is increasing court action and other steps to seek direct application of the treaty of Rome, particularly its competition rules.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House to make this statement.
On the question of axle weights, will he make it clear and confirm that the derogation to which he has agreed is unaffected by the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which is currently going through Parliament? Secondly, will he confirm his opposition to any increase in lorry weights above 38 tonnes and above the axle weights in the derogation, and that the phrase in his statement
no increase in the maximum weight until Parliament agrees and our roads are suitable
is not a precursor for a change in policy?
Is the 38-tonne limit for European vehicles coming to this country still protected under the liberalisation of road haulage? Is the Secretary of State able to say what steps he has taken, or will take, to protect United Kingdom jobs under liberalisation if unfair competition emerges, especially in the context of social conditions for those who are employed in the road haulage industry?
On the question of aviation, will the Secretary of State say precisely what he means by "fully liberal arrangements"? Is this deregulation under another name? He will know that deregulation in the United States has led to lower safety standards, bankruptcies and a chaotic situation. I am sure that the Secretary of State would not want that situation to be paralleled in this country. Therefore, will he give a categorical assurance that he will make safety of paramount importance and that he will retain licensing arrangements to control the safety provisions?
How will the impending liberalisation affect the proposed sell-off of British Airways? Would it not be much better for the Secretary of State to concede that the privatisation of British Airways is now dead and finished with? Is he able to say how his regulatory system and the wide powers that are contained in the Airports Bill, which is currently going through the House, are consistent with liberalisation? For example, will he be able to control air traffic movements to different airports? Will the Secretary of State be able to pursue a policy of that kind if air traffic is to be liberalised? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to abandon that policy, which is contained in the Airports Bill?
Has Mr. Sutherland, the EEC Minister with responsibility for competition, now withdrawn his threat


to sponsor court actions until some progress has been made on liberalisation, or lower fares, or however the Secretary of State finally defines it? How soon does he think it will be before progress is made in reaching a compromise solution? Sadly, many airlines believe that the current uncertainty is damaging their business prospects and their opportunity to plan for the future. Will the Secretary of State confirm and ensure that, before any arrangements or deals are concluded, either on road haulage or on aviation policy, Parliament will be fully consulted and that the matter will be fully debated so that we may, I hope, be able to influence the right hon. Gentleman in reaching his final conclusions?

Mr. Moore: I shall try to cover the points that were made, and if I do not cover every detail I shall seek to write to the hon. Gentleman.
With regard to the point that he raised on weights and whether the European Communities (Amendment) Bill now going through Parliament in any way limits the unanimity provision that I secured, the answer is that it is in no way affected. The unanimity provision that I sought was parallel to that which my predecessor sought in 1984, and that takes place in regard to article 75(3). That obviously stays, as it is outside the legislation.
As to whether this is a precursor of any change, the answer is no, the Government's policy remains precisely as it was. We obviously have to get our bridges and roads in shape. My predecessor made the position quite clear to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman will know—he is very experienced in these matters—that there is a need for a considerable process of assessment of our bridges. At present it seems that about 20 per cent. of our bridges would be adequate for the traffic, but most need considerable enhancement.
With regard to the point that the hon. Gentleman made on the 38-tonne limit, this in no way enables foreign or other juggernauts above that point to cross our frontier, and in terms of derogation this is totally protected.
As to the hon. Gentleman's point on the protection of jobs, one of the crucial features of the liberalisation of lorry permits was the way in which our hauliers and our businesses wishing to go overseas would not be inhibited by the excessive bureaucratic permit structure that exists today. To that extent I hope and trust that this will amount to increased job opportunities not only for business but for our truckers.
The hon. Gentleman made other specific points. He asked me to define what I meant by liberalisation in terms of the treaty. What I do not mean is any diminution of safety. Safety in the air is clearly a crucial precursor to anything that we may seek to do in this respect. The three — four, some might say — basic arguments behind aviation liberalisation relate to greater market access, improvements in respect of fares, and capacity, within the competition rules. Our objectives will be to seek scope for real competition on fares, covering types of fares as well as fare levels to give the consumer a better deal. That is critical to us. We shall also seek scope for airlines to mount capacity on the basis of their commercial judgment and scope for airlines to be able to enter the markets and compete on routes that are already served or to start up new routes more easily with proper application of the competition rules.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether all this is consistent with the British Airports Authority legislation that is going

through Parliament and with the pattern of proper regulation. I see no reason to assume otherwise, especially in relation to the other point that he made regarding British Airways. British Airways has nothing to fear—quite the contrary. There will be an enhancement of competition opportunities in the Community. This will apply to other airlines also, such as British Caledonian —as, indeed, we saw from the excellent example of the British Midland service to Amsterdam yesterday. They all have everything to gain by this. I will of course seek, as I sought before the Scrutiny Committee, the support of Parliament on these substantial issues.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend accept that completion of the internal market is an essential feature of the EEC, to which we are fully entitled, and for which we are already paying a very high price in contributions to the common agricultural policy? Will he therefore accept that there is no need to make any further concessions to secure it?
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the line that he has taken on lorry weights and axle weights, and the derogation that he has succeeded in securing. When that package was agreed by the House, grave doubts were expressed about towbar vehicles, which are impossible to overtake on anything other than a motorway. Will he consider carefully whether restrictions rather than liberalisation should take place in that respect?

Mr. Moore: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He has great knowledge of this matter. He is, or course, right. The commitment to the completion of the internal market is absolute, and all that we can do to help we obviously must do. However, I accept his point. I saw no need for concessions in this area—quite the contrary.
With regard to aviation, with some Community and Council colleagues we were seeking to argue very much what I would regard as the right case for the consumer and for our aviation industry.
On the question of towbars, I know that my right hon. Friend has deep knowledge of this subject. There is no change in the derogations that I was able to secure. The derogation on 40-tonne lorries which took place, as I recall, in December 1984 maintained the weight load at 32.5 tonnes for towbar lorries, and there was the 38-tonne derogation for non-towbar lorries. I shall look at his point without any commitment at this time.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is it not the case in regard to aviation that the principles that the Minister has enunciated are those pursued by his predecessor without success throughout his tenure of office? How much longer will it be before the Government are prepared to take action in the European Court?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman's point reminds me that I had not completely answered all the points of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who asked specifically about Commissioner Sutherland. I apologise for that.
The Commission has the decision whether it institutes article 89 proceedings. To the extent that that is a matter for the Commission, I cannot comment on whether it will seek to continue that. Although we would prefer to see the Council of Ministers and the Community as a whole succeed in this area, without recourse to law, I do not see that we can argue aggressively against other actions by the Commission. I would see this as a parallel process.
I am not sure that I accept the underlying critical note behind the hon. Gentleman's question. There have been substantive changes. Apart from the United Kingdom's continued leadership in this area, rightly, on behalf of the consumer and of our aviation industry, we saw a major change last week in the Council of Ministers at The Hague summit, where access, fares and capacity were the three key legs on which it was agreed that competition in aviation must be pursued. For the first time we have a Commission document. It is not adequate for the United Kingdom, but it is a Commission statement that includes capacity, fares and competition in advance of Council considerations. We achieved an agreement yesterday to the three fundamentals — access, capacity and fares, along with competition. As I said in my statement, I accept that implementation will be difficult. I know that the hon. Gentleman will seek to help me and British consumers to wage the good fight.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House in simple language what the United Kingdom wants for aviation in Europe? Can he also refute categorically the suggestion that there is any hard evidence that deregulation in the United States has resulted in a lowering of safety standards? Any analysis of the accidents in the United States shows clearly that this is not so. Accidents that can be directly attributed to lack of maintenance occurred on aircraft on flights in no way connected with deregulation.

Mr. Moore: I do not think that it is my role to comment on the United States' thriving airline industry, which seeks to serve the consumer with a sense of safety. That would be the role of Members of a different Parliament.
My hon. Friend asked what we want. I thought that I had been perfectly clear. We are asking options for consumers within a proper pattern of regulated safety to allow them to move freely on the same kind of price and opportunity terms that exist in other similar aviation marketplaces. We do not have that today. This will advantage not only the consumer but, I believe, our aviation industry and the European aviation industry. Those are two clear patterns of advantage.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: In respect of his term of office, can the right hon. Gentleman, for the sake of the House, name the countries which he expects to present the greatest difficulty in obtaining liberalisation?

Mr. Moore: I feel that that would limit my international effectiveness, if not my term of office, and I would prefer to seek to persuade rather than to argue in a confrontational way at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: I welcome the continuing activity of my right hon. Friend on aviation liberalisation. Has he turned his attention to the possibility of action that could be taken by the British Government without reference to other members of the EEC? If he were to lean on British Airways to abrogate the agreements that exist between them and their European opposite numbers, that would surely give the opportunity for fares from this country to continental destinations to be reduced, even though it may not necessarily give similar advantage to people flying from, say, Germany or France.

After a period, might not public opinion in those countries begin to press the authorities if people realised that we had advantages which they did not?

Mr. Moore: I know my hon. Friend's intimate knowledge of and connection with the airline industry. Therefore, he will be aware that I announced to the House on 18 June that we were reviewing the machinery and procedure needed to allow us to apply the competition rules under article 88. I made it clear at the Council of Ministers that I shall do so if it proves impossible to reach a satisfactory agreement within the Council.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Will the Minister recognise that there is a potential conflict between civil aviation deregulation and safety standards? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is certainly the case that if prices are driven down far enough there will be a reduction in safety standards. Will the Secretary of State accept that Europe has a good record in airline safety? Will he ensure that nothing detracts from that?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman must remember the critical importance that we all place on safety. I know that that applies to the official Opposition. Safety is within the purview of the CAA. No airline flies under our safety regulations without CAA approval. The hon. Gentleman should not assume that there is a conflict between safety and the opportunities for the consumer through competition, so long as we ensure that the CAA is responsible. I do not believe that there is a conflict.

Mr. Keith Speed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if we applied the same restrictions to German and other imports as they apply to our aircraft industry, particularly our thriving independents, there would be uproar in Europe'? May I reinforce him in everything that he is trying to do to liberalise the position, which will help consumers throughout Europe, and particularly the British aviation industry, which is the best in Europe?

Mr. Moore: I feel I ought to agree with almost everything that my hon. Friend said. Yesterday I made it clear—and I ask for the support of both sides of the House— that we need the support of the consumer to press upon Governments less liberal in their attitudes than ours the need to develop competition that will benefit not just our consumers but our independent aviation industry.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I thank the Minister for mentioning the scrutiny procedure. He will realise that the decision does not necessarily preclude debate. In respect of the axle weight derogation, he also mentioned getting bridges into shape. Does that mean that at some time in the future it is envisaged that the British Government will voluntarily cede this and that the axle weight limit will go up?

Mr. Moore: I did not actually say that. On the first point, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. I appreciate the way in which the Scrutiny Committee was able to help us secure what was in the national interest. That was helpful to me in my negotiations. What I said clearly was that we have been going through an assessment of our bridges and roads. With the present pattern of usage and present weights it is clear that they require work. It is also clear from what we have learnt in Europe that the Commission regards the technical axle weight equivalent of 40 tonnes to be 11.5 tonnes. We have agreed to no more and no less than the existing derogation. I also said clearly


today that we need to consult Parliament before we can go further and that we need to know whether the bridges and roads are in the right shape. I did not go further than that.

Mr. Anthony Steen: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on assuming the presidency of the Transport Council of the European Commission. I thank him for the efforts that he made in trying to get all European countries to adopt an open skies approach. Does he agree that it is appalling that after so many years only Holland has got rid of a duopoly between capital cities, in that only Holland allows airlines other than the state airline to fly from Heathrow to its capital? Surely pressure could be put on the Commission to speed up the process whereby the open skies policy applies to the whole of Europe, because that would benefit not just our consumers, but consumers of other European countries.

Mr. Moore: I ought to remind my hon. Friend that my predecessor and my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for aviation, the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), who is with me, have secured benefits for air flights not simply in regard to Holland, but in regard to Belgium, Luxembourg and Germany. I take the point that my hon. Friend made. I believe that he was in Amsterdam yesterday with my colleague on the inauguration of the new flight by British Midland. There are clear opportunities there for the consumer and for the aviation industry of this country. I take the first point that he made with a sense of discomfort. I am not sure that acquiring the presidency of the Transport Council today will be an unmixed blessing.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As he is bringing a fresh mind to the job, and as he is at the beginning of his presidency of the Transport Committee in Europe, has the Minister any constructive ideas about how many heavy loads could usefully be transferred from road to rail, not only with the coming of the Channel tunnel, but with the problems throughout Europe of bridges that are no longer as strong and as safe as they once were because of the heavy loads and the deterioration of the fabric of the bridges?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman has a legitimate point. When I first took over this brief only a few weeks ago I considered carefully the Channel tunnel proposal. In debates on the Channel tunnel my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) reminded us just how significant to so much of Kent was the opportunity to put off road on to rail freight that would no longer damage the fabric of the rural environment of Kent. It is an area that I am only too happy to look at with care. I do not think that this is the occasion on which to speak at length, but it is a legitimate area to consider. We have to value not only our rural fabric but our railway infrastructure as well.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of all hon. Members in this country, where the continuation of the axle weight is of greater importance probably than anywhere else? Will he bear in mind that our opponents, particularly the Liberals and the SDP, cast great doubt on the ability of the Government to maintain this? He deserves to be congratulated on being able to give that assurance. Will he pursue with the same pressure and the same success, among all the other aviation problems, lower fares for the

consumer? If we can get lower fares, many of the other things will probably fall into place. That should be i.he principal and primary objective.

Mr. Moore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I thought that they were about to prompt a reaction from below the Opposition Gangway. My hon. Friend is right. Those of us who have considered the experiences over the last few years in regard to the way in which consumers can fly between Holland and this country see the obvious benefits of safe, secure and decent flying, but at a considerably lower price because of competition.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Secretary of State aware that from his earlier answer it seems as though he is preparing the way for heavier lorries in future? Is he aware of the concern among many residents of towns and cities throughout the country that we already have far too many heavy lorries from Europe? As he has just become Secretary of State, will he tell the House what his attitude is towards the GLC lorry ban? Will he undertake to enforce, and indeed extend, the provisions of the lorry ban so that Londoners at least can sleep easily in their beds at night?

Mr. Moore: I hate to think what would happen if the hon. Gentleman had been representing this country at a place where the standard for most lorry axle weights, for example, in France and in Spain, averages 13 tonnes and where they wanted a common axle weight of 12 tonnes. We have secured, with the support of both sides of the House, I think, the maintenance of exactly the same pattern of derogation that we succeeded in achieving before— no more and no less—which is precisely what our national needs are. I do not think that I need repeat that again. We are precisely where we were, and I see no reason to expect to have to change that.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: In so far as my right hon. Friend's remarks apply to road haulage, will this mean less bureaucracy and less form filling? I ask that specifically on behalf of a road haulier in my constituency. As a result of a minor error that road haulier suffered a confiscatory fine by the French customs which was in excess of the value of the vehicle and all its goods. On appeal, the penalty was reduced to £60,000. All that was involved was an error of form filling of 19 rolls of fabric. Can my right hon. Friend ensure that our road hauliers are not treated in such a piratical way when they cross the Channel?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is an important point to illustrate, because it will benefit our hauliers and thereafter obviously help British business and British workers. At the moment Community permits allow unlimited journeys throughout the Community for the period for which they are valid. What we have done will considerably reduce the amount of bureaucracy faced by hauliers who at present, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) rightly says, often need several bilateral permits for a single journey. It will make it easier for hauliers on their return journey to pick up loads in other countries. It will not only reduce the administrative burden on hauliers but will give them the opportunity to work more competitively against their continental competitors.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Without prompting by the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), I was going to congratulate the new Secretary of State on coming back with a 10·5 tonnes maximum axle limit. However, he will be aware that there would be great resistance to a suggestion that the axle limit should be increased.
Mat I press him slightly further on two matters? First is there any proposal, during his presidency, to deal urgently with safety issues arising from road haulage throughout the European Community?
Given that there is to a package of proposals on aviation between now and 1992, including competition, regulation and deregulation, can consumers expect, in the first part of that period, a reduction in the artificially high air fares for flights around Europe?

Mr. Moore: There are no specific road haulage safety proposals, although I know the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are in European Safety Year. Obviously we are seeking other initiatives in that area.
With regard to aviation, 1992 is the end of the period for complete liberalisation. Having had a reasonable first step yesterday in achieving the principles, I shall seek to start putting some flesh on to them. Therefore, I am trying, through pressure, to achieve some success, which will essentially, quite rightly, be for the benefit of the consumer.

Mr. David Harris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of our European partners, especially West Germany—if he is afraid to mention it—seem hell-bent on doing everything that they can to maintain the scandalous cartel on air fares, which rips off the consumer right, left and centre? If no progress has been made on this subject at the end of my right hon. Friend's six-month presidency of the Council of Ministers—as I am afraid will be the case—will he take unilateral action along the lines advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and encourage our airlines to take matters into their own hands?

Mr. Moore: I am, though I am not sure that I feel naturally communautaire, the President of the European Council as from today, but I am not sure that I ought to be particular about which of my colleagues on the Council of Ministers I ought to push harder than others. Having said that, I hope that my hon. Friend heard what I said earlier—I said it carefully—about the way in which we are seeking to establish the methods and procedure of article 88 which is important.

Mr. John Watts: Following my right hon. Friend's initiative, what does he expect the main benefits to be for the road haulage industry and the consumers

from the agreement reached? Does he expect any beneficial impact upon any European truck manufacturers, including Ford Iveco in my constituency?

Mr. Moore: As I suggested earlier, I expect that it will reduce the form filling and some of the unnecessary bureaucratic burden on our haulage industry. To that extent the agreement will be an advantage to consumers and to businesses in Britain.
It clearly must have an advantage for British manufacturing industry, to the extent that the absence of the need for permits throughout Europe will allow British manufacturers to have an advantage. I hope that it will benefit my hon. Friend's constituents.

Mr. Tony Favell: What reason did my right hon. Friend's European counterparts give for continuing the present European aviation system, which, after all does nothing but promote inefficiency? During his six months presidency, will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to point out to his counterparts that the world's favourite airlines are cost competitive?

Mr. Moore: I do not think that my hon. Friend or the House would wish me to take many hours to debate what took place yesterday. I am a little perplexed because, in many ways, many of our continental friends suffer from a fear of the unknown and they are not as aware as we are of the benefits of competition in aviation. It is our duty and that of consumers throughout Europe to make them better aware of those advantages.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I welcome the liberalisation of the road haulage industry. I represent an east midlands constituency and I have to travel up and down the M I every week. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are far too many foreign lorries on our roads and that not enough of our lorries are able to bring back goods from foreign countries? With the liberalisation, it is very important to cut out the form filling and ensure that our lorries are full. We would therefore get a share of an extremely lucrative cake.

Mr. Moore: What we have done will clearly benefit our hauliers. To that extent my hon. Friend is right.

Sir John Farr: Will my right hon. Friend consider an important matter which is a threat to British jobs? This is the export from Belgium of road trailers which are subsidised by the Belgian Government to the extent of 20 per cent. These road trailers are already eating into our domestic market and affecting very important manufacturers in the midlands.

Mr. Moore: Although that does not fit precisely into the statement, I shall look into the matter that my hon. Friend has raised.

Points of Order

Mr. David Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order is a sartorial one, which I hope you will feel well qualified to judge. I make no complaint this afternoon of the attire of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not'?"] Because I will refer the House and yourself Mr. Speaker, to the rules and conventions which appertain in the House. The other day, during this heatwave, I read that some judges had decided to remove their wigs in court. If you were to remove your wig, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether we could go on sitting; there is no rule about it, but I would feel that a convention had been broken.
Your deputies, Sir, wear an almost unsuitable rig for a hot day but this place is air-conditioned. They wear a tailcoat or a cutaway—and they do bring dignity to the Chamber, as of course do you, Mr. Speaker.
We have no rules or conventions about dress but I once asked your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, whether he could see an hon. Member who was not wearing a tie and he said that he had some difficulty in doing so. This afternoon I thought you had some difficulty in seeing the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.

Mr. Speaker: I had no difficulty in seeing the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). As to dress— —

Mr. Robert Maclennan: rose——

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am dealing with the question of dress, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). As the Chamber is air-conditioned, and as it is a long-standing convention that we treat the House with respect, I think that, in tune with what goes on outside this place these days at dinner parties and so on, Members should come into the Chamber wearing a tie. I would not object if Members came in shirtsleeves in this hot weather, but I think that ties should always be worn.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before takes place, may I ask whether it has ever happened in your experience that a succession of senior Whips, junior Ministers and now the Secretary of State for Defence have signed the ballot for private Members' motions? Can we take that, if the Secretary of State wins, his motion will be one of total confidence in the conduct of the Prime Minister in relation to F111s, the Falklands and Westland?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time and he is aware that it is perfectly in order for Ministers to sign a ballot in the name of someone else. That has always been the case.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I raised a point of order on the application under Standing Order No. 10 and you rightly said that all points of view would no doubt be heard, as they were today, on the South African issue. However, this is an honourable House and some hon. Members have interests which have led to their making

free trips and so on. I have been to the Library and checked and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has not concealed the fact that he went to South Africa as a guest of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in South Africa. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) also went, partly sponsored by South African Airways. I am not talking about an ordinary Question Time, but when there is an important statement such as we have had today, surely it is not too much to ask that hon. Members should declare clearly that they have gone on such free trips so that the House will accordingly be able to assess how far one can accept what they say when they put forward their point of view, always in favour of the South African regime.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman well knows the conventions and rules that hon. Members should declare such trips in the Register of Interests. It has never been a rule here that they declare an interest when asking questions or supplementary questions.

Mr. James Couchman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to bring to your attention a significant abuse of the House by hon. Members representing the Liberal party. I regret that so few of them are in their places. There is only the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). As reported in yesterday's Hansard at column 368, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) had asked a written question that has been answered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, which relates specifically to the disappearance of a handgun from Gillingham police station in my constituency.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that I do not often rise on points of order—I am no whiner—but this is now the third occasion on which members of the Liberal party have asked questions which relate specifically to my constituency.
On 11 June 1986, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked a question which was generally accepted locally as relating specifically to a piece of land in my constituency — the Great Lines in Gillingham and that appeared at column 187.
On 27 November 1985, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), in an oral supplementary question, asked a question relating to Chatham dockyard, even though I was in the Chamber at the time.
That seems to me to be an abuse of the House. Those hon. Gentlemen have obviously been set up by their colleagues in my constituency to ask those questions. If that is not an abuse of the House, it is at the very least a discourtesy and against the conventions of the House, and I shall have only one recourse and that is to become very interested in the affairs of Montgomery, Orkney and Shetland and Yeovil.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one point of order at a time. It has long been a convention that we do not take up individual cases in constituencies of other hon. Members. It is perfectly in order to ask a question of general interest in a constituency, but we should stick to the convention of the House that we do not interfere in each other's constituencies, because that would lead to chaos.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I deal with the two points of order that have been raised? [HON. MEMBERS: "What do you mean, deal with?"]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear this.

Mr. Hughes: I hope that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) will be aware that the questions asked by my colleagues, who are not here to answer, were asked in their capacity as spokesmen for the party [Interruption.] More specifically, a question about handguns is perfectly appropriate for a spokesman on home affairs of any party to raise, no matter where it arises. I hope that the House will accept that that too is a convention which has always been accepted. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your modern and sympathetic ruling earlier on dress. When I stood in for my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) at short notice, out of courtesy to the House, I borrowed a tie from a member of my Whips Office staff so that I could be properly dressed.

Mr. Speaker: The fact that a member of a minority party happens to be a spokesman has no relation to our conventions in the House which, as a general principle, should be observed by everybody.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) mentioned me in his point of order a moment or two ago. Will you confirm that the procedure of the House is that hon. Members do not have to declare any form of interest at Question Time, but should declare an interest if they participate in a debate? Is there any difference between going to the Soviet Union, Afghanistan, Poland or Czechoslovakia and going to the Republic of South Africa, whether as a guest of the Council of Churches or the Government of the Republic of South Africa? Is there any reason why I should have declared that in my supplementary question earlier today?

Mr. Speaker: I have already answered that. It is not necessary for hon. Members to declare an interest when asking supplementary questions.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the Prime Minister's statement it will be within your recollection, and it will be recorded in the Official Report, that when the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) rose, like a bullet from a gun, to deny that he had supported the sale of arms to South Africa, whereupon the Prime Minister gave chapter and verse supporting what was common knowledge, that he had favoured the selling of arms to South Africa since 1968, you said that you would call him at the end of the statement, but you did not do so? Would you be willing to tell us why you did not do so?

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was rising because he wished to be called at the end of the Prime Minister's statement. In the event, he did not do so.

Sir John Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you about business late at night? It says on the Order Paper at page 4096 that at ten o'clock a motion will be moved stating:
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to European Communities (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.
Those of us who have grave reservations about guillotining a constitutional Bill with such severe and far-reaching implications as this thought that it was an excellent idea to have an open-ended debate later tonight on whether the guillotine should or should not be imposed and the timetable introduced. But page 4101 of the Order Paper says:
Mr. Speaker will put any Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the above Motion not more than Three hours after their commencement, pursuant to Standing Order No. 46.
Am I right— I hope that I am not—in assuming that there is a chance that you may possibly, when three hours have elapsed after the commencement of discussion on the time-table motion tonight, put the question?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. I should make it plain to the House that the ten o'clock business motion does not affect the length of proceedings on the allocation of time order. It enables the debate on that motion to be proceeded with after ten o'clock. I have a separate duty under Standing Order No. 46 to put any Question necessary to dispose of such proceedings not more than three hours after the commencement of those proceedings. That interpretation of the Standing Orders is well precedented.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We have an important debate. It will take up valuable time.

Mr. Marlow: We were discussing earlier on points of order the Register of Members' Interests. We all know that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) went to South Africa to posture but we did not know that he went to take photographs for The Sun. I am not saying that this is the case, but if he received any money from The Sun for taking those photographs, would it be necessary for him to declare that?

Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical question that has nothing to do with the debate that we are due to have.

Greek Cement

5 pm

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The import of subsidised Greek cement".
I am gravely concerned that the import of subsidised Greek cement will have a most damaging effect on our home-based cement industry. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, in the House listening to my application. I appreciate his action, as will my constituents.
Following the collapse of the middle east as a major market for Greek cement, the United Kingdom has been targeted as a soft touch for the dumping of substantial quantities of cement. We have been selected as the first new target, probably because of our relatively stable market conditions and because Greece and the United Kingdom are members of the EEC.
About 10 days ago, the floating silo Sement VI arrived at Tilbury docks. It seems likely that further silos will be established at Liverpool. Avonmouth and possibly Southampton. The dumped cement may be sold at £38 per delivered tonne, which is 26 per cent. cheaper than that which is produced by the three major British manufacturers, including Rugby Portland Cement plc, which is in my constituency. Unless stopped, that cement will be on sale within the next four to six weeks.
The House should be aware of the long-term damage that will he done to the United Kingdom industry. It should be remembered that the industry is already suffering as a result of the downturn in construction. The appearance of foreign cement selling at 26 per cent. cheaper than the home-produced product will result in plant closures and substantial job losses. The cement is selling so much cheaper than the home-produced item because it enjoys a subsidy of 18 per cent. from the Greek Government. Moreover, Greece protects its home-based market by substantial tariffs. That is grossly unfair and discriminatory.
I am most worried about the British cement industry, which has a good reputation for investment and

productivity. It will be deeply resented, not just by my constituents but throughout Britain, if dumped Greek imports are allowed to destroy our home industry.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
The import of subsidised Greek cement.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I hope that he will find another way of raising the matter in the House. I cannot submit his application to the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 14 JULY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Andy Stewart
Mr. Derek Spencer
Mr. Stuart Bell

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I suggest that the hon. Member who has been successful in the ballot tables a motion of confidence in the Prime Minister's conduct in relation to the Falklands, the F111 and Westland?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a decision which I can influence.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the four motions relating to Statutory Instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Miscellaneous Foods) (Amendment) Order 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.
That the draft Functions of Traffic Wardens (Amendment) Order 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.
That the draft Road Races (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.
That the draft Hovercraft (Civil Liability) Order 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.—[Mr. Neuberti]

Welsh Language

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Welsh Language Act 1967; and to make further provision relating to the use of the Welsh language in Wales; and for connected purposes.
Few hon. Members will be unaware of the considerable and growing interest that has been taken in the Welsh language during the past 20 years. The survival of the Welsh language is one of the miracles of modern Wales. At the last census, more than 500,000 people in Wales could speak Welsh — almost 20 per cent. of the population. Probably at least another 250,000 people have a good understanding of the language although they do not speak it. In my constituency, more than 80 per cent. of the population can speak Welsh and two out of every three constituency letters that I receive are written in Welsh.
It is the normal working language in the community, and Cyngor Dosbarth Dwyfor, one of the two district councils in my area, undertakes its work exclusively in the Welsh language. During recent years, the Welsh Schools Movement has grown to such an extent that, by now, almost one third of primary school children in areas such as Pontypridd and Caerphilly—most of whose parents do not speak Welsh—receive their education through the medium of the Welsh language.
Yet the official status of the language is far from clear. Although the Acts of 1535 and 1536 which banned he Welsh language from official use have been amended by the Welsh Courts Act 1942 and the Welsh Language Act 1967, which gives the language some new status, people still do not know what their language rights are. After centuries of having been told, or having it implied, that there is something inferior in speaking their language, it is hardly surprising that some uncertainty still exists among Welsh people.
In the early 1960s, a new interest grew in the Welsh language, especially after the historic broadcast by the late Mr. Saunders Lewis in 1962, entitled "Tynged yr laith". Soon afterwards, in 1964, the question of status was higlighted in the court case of Evans v. Thomas. The Hughes-Parry commission which reported in 1965 on the status of the language made widespread and radical recommendations. Some of those were incorporated in the Welsh Language Act 1967, which was a significant step forward. However, after 20 years of living with that Act, it is plain that there are massive shortcomings which must be put right.
A main plank of the Hughes-Parry report was the formulation of the principle of equal validity of the Welsh and English languages in Wales, whereby anything said or written in either language would be equally valid. The report made a specific recommendation. Recommendation (3) states:
The principle of equal validity should be adopted as the basic principle governing the future use of Welsh in the administration of justice and the conduct of public administration.
However, in the 1967 Act the provisions were not so clear-cut. The Act established the equal validity of Welsh when spoken in the courts, but it did not give all written legal documents such equal validity. More importantly, it did not establish a general principle of equal validity in the

conduct of public business as recommended by the Hughes-Parry report and certainly not in general day-to-day life. There is a widespread misunderstanding in Wales on this matter.
During the years, those shortcomings have manifested themselves in a host of problems: solicitors being unable to present certain documents in Welsh to the court, parents unable to register the birth of their children in Welsh, people having cheques made out in Welsh refused —I had yet another letter of complaint about this only last week—prisoners being told that they cannot speak Welsh with visiting relatives, companies not being allowed to register their names in Welsh, and company accounts being refused by Companies house because they were kept in Welsh. The list in enormous, and enough to show that the spirit of the Hughes-Parry report is most certainly not working out as the authors of that report intended.
A main objective of the Bill is to clear up the unsatisfactory position which exists, and to afford the Welsh and English languages full official status, with written or oral statements having equal validity in whichever language they are made.
But the Welsh Language Act 1967 also failed to bring about conditions which would turn the excellent principle of equal validity into meaningful reality for the individual. The entire structure of the courts and administration was largely untouched by the Act and no requirement was placed on public authorities in Wales to facilitate a proper choice of the language for the individual citizen.
When confronted with an English-only form to fill in, 95 per cent. of people will fill it in in English because that is the implied requirement of the form. Four per cent. may choose to fill it in in Welsh, and 1 per cent. may ask why no Welsh form is available. To give the individual respondent a meaningful choice of language, there must be a dimension of bilingualism in the form iteself. Either it should have both languages on it, which is practical in a large proportion of cases or forms should be equally available in Welsh and English. To make equal validity a reality for the private citizen, the apparatus of public administration must be equal-handed. The Bill provides for public notices and forms to be bilingual, to give the individual the right to choose which language he or she uses for reading or for writing.
The Bill allows a defendant to choose in which language he or she wishes the court to hear the case. Nothing could be fairer than that. The Bill also aims at establishing a right in law for children and young people to be able to learn the Welsh language and have their education in the medium of Welsh within reasonable distance of their homes. This already happens in many parts of Wales, but not everywhere, and in some areas there have been bitter controversies when parents feel that they have not had a proper opportunity for their children to be educated through the medium of Welsh.
Welsh Office policy on the matter is encapsulated in a written reply that I received this week, which states that education through the medium of Welsh should be available within the constraints of available resources to all children whose parents are desirous of it. However, that definition has a prelude, to the effect that it is for individual authorities to determine the nature of the provision in their own area. That is the rub. Although some authorities have a very good track record, others have been reluctant to give all children in their area that option.
The Secretary of State has acknowledged that there is a need for better co-ordination in regard to the provision of instruction through the medium of Welsh. The Bill gives a framework establishing a right to such Welsh-medium education throughout Wales. It does not force Welsh-medium education on anyone. It merely provides a right in law.
The Bill would also allow employees of large companies and public authorities a certain amount of statutory time off to learn the Welsh language. That might indeed help such employees in their work, and give them an opportunity that they never had at school. Again, the provision is permissive. It does not force anyone to learn Welsh against his will.
The Bill covers a number of other matters: the standardisation of road signs; the establishment of an office of Language Commissioner for Wales, with a duty to try to conciliate and arbitrate in language disputes and to advise on the implementation of the Act; a requirement for structure plans to have regard for the Welsh language in the same way as they currently have regard to the conservation of the natural environment; rights to register births, deaths and marriages in Welsh, write cheques in Welsh and present company accounts in Welsh; and a right for prisoners to communicate in Welsh.
In various ways, the Bill addresses a host of practical problems that I have encountered in my day-to-day work as a Member of Parliament and which are faced from time to time by the Welsh-speaking community. The Bill takes nothing away from non-Welsh speakers. Throughout the Bill, the objective is to give people language rights, not to force a language on them. That being so, I am sure that it will appeal to the vast majority of people in Wales as to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The fate of the Welsh language is not a responsibility consigned to any one party. I am glad that I have the support of members of all the four parties that represent Wales in the Chamber as sponsors of the Bill.
The language is not just a matter for those of us who are Welsh speakers, often by accident of birth. The Welsh language belongs to us all, and goodwill for Welsh speakers and non-Welsh speakers alike will be needed if its revival is to gain further momentum.
However, goodwill by itself is not enough. Fortunately, there is also tremendous enthusiasm, as we have seen over the past 20 years. Thousands of young people have campaigned for the language, especially through the Welsh Language Society. Hundreds of young people who care deeply for the language have gone to prison as a result of civil disobedience in such campaigns. Perhaps they have

cared too much. Because we in responsibility have not taken up proposals that have commanded widespread support, perhaps our own shortcomings have contributed to the feelings of frustration and desperation that have occasionally fuelled excessive zeal.
The securing of the right environment for the survival of the language and the culture and values that go with it should not rest on the perennial battles of the younger generation against the perceived intransigence of an insensitive state. We need more than state neutrality, for that will do little to reverse the tide that has for centuries worked against the language. We need language rights firmly established in law—they have become the norm in other multilingual states—as in the case of Catalan, Basque and Galician in Spain and Flemish, French and German in Belgium. We must break out of the myopic insularity that has tended to blinker matters related to languages in these islands.
There is abundant evidence that there is a desire in Wales for an updating of the Welsh Language Act. Last year, the Colwyn bay tribunal showed the inadequacy of present legislation. Numerous councils, societies and denominational bodies have called for amendments to the Act. A working party including many distinguished members such as Lord Prys-Davies has been drawing up proposals over the past two years. A new petition is now circulating in Wales and I have no doubt that it will attract tens of thousands of signatures.
The time is ripe for change. What better time for change could there be than now, 450 years after the 1536 Act which threatened "utterly to extirp" the Welsh language? Next year will be 20 years from the passing of the previous Act, and if the Act is in force by 1988, that could be a fitting commemoration of the 400th anniversary of the translation of the Bible into Welsh by Bishop Morgan. The time is indeed appropriate for the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. D. E. Thomas, Mr. Donald Stewart, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Mr. Geraint Howells, Mr. Keith Best, Dr. Roger Thomas, Mr. Richard Livsey, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. Gordon Wilson and Mr. John Hume.

WELSH LANGUAGE

Mr. Dafydd Wigley accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Welsh Language Act 1967; to make further provision relating to the use of the Welsh language in Wales; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 July 1986 and to be printed. [Bill 192.]

Orders of the Day — Defence

SECOND DAY'S DEBATE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [30 June]:
That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1986, contained in Cmnd. 9763.—[Mr. Younger]

Which amendment was to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
`believes that the plans outlined in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1986, Cmnd. 9763, and in particular the Government's plans to buy the Trident nuclear system, are leading to damaging cuts in Britain's conventional defence capabilities at home and abroad and in Britain's defence industrial base; calls upon the Government to cancel Trident and to use the money saved for more practical non-nuclear defence purposes; declares that the security and the defence of the United Kingdom will be best served in future by maintaining strong conventional defences within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and not by acquiring a new generation of nuclear weaponry of any kind; and calls upon the Government to take an active part in securing the removal of all nuclear weapons from the United Kingdom and the reduction and abolition of all nuclear weapons, and also to make plain its opposition to the production and deployment of chemical weapons by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America and any other nations', instead thereof.—[Mr. Denzil Davies.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Speaker: As the House well knows, we had a rather late start today, because of statements, other matters on the Order Paper and points of order. I propose to put a limit on speeches of 10 minutes between 7 and 9 o'clock, because there is a very long list of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. I hope that those called before 7 o'clock will not abuse their position, having been called early. I intend today to give some precedence to those who were conscientious in their attendance during the debate yesterday.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): In any democracy it is right that there should be a debate on how much of the nation's wealth is spent on defence, and how that allocated amount should be split between the various defence roles, including nuclear and conventional defence, and between the three services—or perhaps only two if certain of their Lordships in the other place have their way.
I welcome the contributions to the debate yesterday and look forward to further speeches from right hon. and hon. Members today. I should also like to pay tribute to the contribution from the Defence Select Committee, whose weighty and constructive report was published last week.
The Government are proud to proclaim their record on defence. The facts speak for themselves. Spending on defence has benefited from seven years of real growth since 1979 and the total budget for 1986–87 is some £18·5 billion. Of this, some £8·3 billion—or 45 per cent.—is to be spent on equipment for the armed forces, or virtually £1 million every hour.
We are buying a vast quantity of new equipment for the services and sustaining substantial employment in this country through our procurement spend. Nevertheless, as

my right hon. Friend acknowledged to the Defence Select Committee, there are some difficult decisions ahead as the defence budget moves to a period of slight real decline. However, there is no question of having to withdraw from any major commitment or significant part thereof.
United Kingdom procurement spending now takes up 45 per cent. of the budget — the highest figure in the NATO Alliance. It has risen from a modest figure of 34 per cent. in 1975–76. Unlike the previous Labour Government, who increased the equipment percentage of the budget at the expense of service men's pay packets, the present Government have increased defence spending, paid our soldiers, sailors and airmen a realistic rate of pay and also, since 1979, increased spending on procurement in real terms by one third or £2 billion. As my right hon. and hon. Friends said yesterday, the quality of our service men is more important even than their equipment; they are our greatest asset. I join my right hon. and hon. Friends in paying tribute to their professionalism.
I should also like to pay tribute to Ministry of Defence civil servants in Whitehall, the research and development establishments—which have a world-wide reputation for expertise — and others. Indeed, one of the annual engagements that I fulfil, which gives me great pleasure, is to officiate at the award ceremony of British Empire Medals to long-serving and meritorious employees.
The Government are firmly committed to the maintenance of the strongest defences for the United Kingdom. We are committed to the maintenance of an independent strategic nuclear deterrent—earlier this year we ordered the first Trident submarine, HMS Vanguard — and to improving and increasing the quality and quantity of conventional equipment for the armed forces.
We often hear arguments about Trident being the cuckoo in the nest of conventional defence improvements. That is simply not the case. The reality is that our existing expenditure on the strategic nuclear force is only some 3·5 per cent. of the budget. While expenditure on Trident is substantial, it has to be seen in context. Over the 20-year period of Trident's introduction into service, the procurement cost of just under £9·9 billion compares with expenditure on British forces Germany over a comparable period at current levels of £46 billion, or nearly five times the total Trident spend. Put another way, Trident's total spend over its 20-year life is about half the total defence budget in any one year.
Too often employment implications of defence spending are overlooked. Some 1·2 million people in the United Kingdom derive their jobs directly or indirectly from defence. It is time Left wingers in the official Opposition party realised the extent of jobs sustained. Indeed, individually many hon. Members opposite do just that when they come to see me, almost on a daily basis, leading delegations to lobby me and other Ministers on orders. Too often it is a case of one voice for the corridors of Whitehall and another for the Labour party conference.
Any attempts by the Labour party to reduce defence spending, if it ever came to power, would unquestionably impact on employment. Moreover, 90 to 95 per cent. of the equipment budget is spent in the United Kingdom, either on national programmes or on the United Kingdom's work share of collaborative programmes.
Indeed, it is interesting to observe that United Kingdom defence industries with a combination of substantial home spend and a demanding customer in the form of our armed services, spurred on by Warsaw pact


technolgical progress, have produced products of a quality and sophistication to equal any in the world. Contrast that with our dismal performance in the consumer field, and perhaps there are lessons to be learned. It just shows what can be done.
I should now like to turn to the main theme of my speech — the increased value for money in defence procurement. I shall come later to the equipment orders that the Government have placed and the main programmes of the three services.
Major credit for increased value for money in defence procurement must go to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who initiated many lasting changes in the way MOD thinks. In addition, my right hon. Friend was responsible for appointing Mr. Peter Levene, the Chief of Defence Procurement, to whom I pay tribute for his excellent work in tightening MOD's procurement and for making the Procurement Executive a more discerning, commercially minded, hard-nosed customer. I am only glad that we pay Mr. Levene a fixed salary, rather than a percentage of the savings he has brought about.

Mr. Dick Douglas: While the Minister is lauding the activities of the Procurement Executive, will he explain why yesterday, a few weeks before the contemplated order for frigates, the Secretary of State could not tell us the number of frigates that he is likely to order, far less the yards in which the orders will be placed?

Mr. Lee: I shall deal with the question of frigates later.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is fully committed to our continuing efforts to get greater efficiency into our procurement spend.
I summarise the broad thrust of our initiatives under the acronym CCCPR — not the Soviet threat, but competition, collaboration, con tractorisation, privatisation, and rationalisation. I will deal with each in turn.
First, I shall deal with competition and our drive to achieve the best value for money. The percentage by value of contracts placed following competition or in a competitive environment has increased considerably over the past three years. In 1983–84 it was 38 per cent.; in 1984–85, 46 per cent.; in 1985–86, 64 per cent. That is an increase of about two thirds over three years, which the Public Accounts Committee and the Defence Select Committee have specifically praised. Competition has achieved demonstrable and highly significant savings. We estimate that competition savings produced about £100 million on the Warrior APC, £60 million on the basic trainer for the Royal Air Force and £20 million, including batch order savings, on three SSK diesel electric submarines.
On a more prosaic level, we ran a competition for the supply of bread and bread rolls. The best customer discount following the competition—the yeast expensive — was 42 per cent. lower than the retail price which previously formed the basis of the price.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I was going to say that I would rise to the occasion. My hon. Friend talks about competitive tendering and the success of his programme. Does he accept that there is concern in some circles that when competitive tendering involves foreign countries tendering for equipment in the United Kingdom in order to reduce the price and make the deal more

potentially competitive, it can nevertheless have a detrimental effect on home-based industries which must provide their specifications for the tenders? Regarding royal ordnance factories in particular, in which I declare an interest, my hon. Friend will know that there is considerable concern about Belgium, West Germany and France competing for tenders in the United Kingdom in a way which royal ordnance factories cannot compete abroad.

Mr. Lee: I shall come to royal ordnance factories later, but I take my hon. Friend's point. I repeat that 90 to 95 per cent. of our procurement spend is spent in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Will the Minister explain why competition was not applied to the refitting contract for the royal yacht Britannia?

Mr. Lee: In taking decisions on refits for the royal yacht Britannia and others, we must strike some sort of balance between the core programme for the royal dockyards and the amount that we can give to the private sector and make available through competition. The trade unions in Devonport entered into a virtual no-strike agreement with us and made it particularly attractive to put Britannia into Devonport.
We are also maximising competition at the subcontract level, and taking steps to make firms more aware of contracting opportunities, including, shortly, a fortnightly publication listing major invitations to tender and MOD contracts.
Over the past 10 years a regime of generous interim payments has ensured that in many cases firms have continued to receive reimbursement of costs and profit from MOD, even if projects have fallen behind and deliveries have been delayed. In the past we have made interim payments of up to 100 per cent. of costs incurred by a contractor, even including interim payment of profit. We intend to reduce these payments, and interim payment of profit will normally be discontinued. The essence of our new approach is to ensure that our contractors have a strong incentive to supply and perform on time. We demand a more direct relationship between defence spending and contractors' achievement. There have been no major awards of such contracts for two years, and they now account for less than 10 per cent. by value of MOD contracts.
I now turn to collaboration, which many hon. Members discussed yesterday, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) who would like to be present this afternoon but is chairing a Select Committee.
Collaboration helps to increase the standardisation and interoperability of equipment in service with NATO's forces; enables us and our allies to make better collective use of the same resources available to us for defence; enhances the technological capabilities of our industries; and demonstrates the political will of Alliance nations to work together for our common defence. That is the background to the initiative taken by the European Defence Ministers in the Independent European Programme Group.
Before leaving collaboration, it would be wrong to ignore the European fighter aircraft. Project definition is proceeding satisfactorily on the basis of the aircraft


characteristics agreed last summer in Turin to a planned conclusion later this year, when decisions on the way ahead will be taken.

Mr. John McWilliam: I hope that the Minister will not leave collaboration without telling the House whether he is satisfied that our artillery forces do not have FH70 shells because the Germans, with whom he is trying to collaborate, cannot make them.

Mr. Lee: I shall deal with the SP70 later in my speech when I discuss the Army programme.
I am pleased that the Select Committee on Defence in its report on the SDE86 welcomed the progress achieved on the collaborative front, but rightly noted that it would take some years for the savings from recent initiatives to accrue to the defence budget.
Thirdly, I should like to deal with contractorisation. It is our policy not to retain in the public sector any defence support activity unless this is operationally essential or unless there are demonstrable savings in such a course. We start from a position of asking why the Government are doing this. Examples of contractorisation in the Ministry of Defence are cleaning, laundering and some aircraft servicing. As the House will be aware, we are also embarking on the introduction of commercial management for the royal dockyards.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I should like to ask my hon. Friend a question about the privatisation of MOD services. Is he aware that a number of Ministry of Defence workers in my constituency and elsewhere feel that they are not being kept fully in the picture by the Ministry of Defence about the way in which contractorisation is being implemented? As they are not told until very late in the day about how their jobs will be affected, they feel that they cannot plan their future. Will my hon. Friend do his best to try to inform them more fully about the future of contractorisation?

Mr. Lee: We try our best, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) will tell me the name of the establishment, I will look into the matter to see what I can do to speed the flow of information.
The Dockyard Services Bill is currently progressing through another place, and the level of commercial interest in managing the dockyards remains satisfactory. We await responses to our invitation to tender from potential bidders at the end of this month. We expect to be able to announce the outcome by November and to have the new system up and running by April next year.

Mr. Douglas: How many?

Mr. Lee: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), from a sedentary position, shouts, "How many?" He has a specific interest in Rosyth. I can tell him that we expect to have interest and specific tenders from three groups — Babcock Weir, Balfour Beatty Thorn-EMI and Press Offshore.
Fourthly, I shall deal with privatisation. There has been much debate recently on the future of Royal Ordnance plc, and the situation is still somewhat fluid. There is little I can add to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 18 June. He said:
It remains my intention to privatise Royal Ordnance, and I am giving further consideration to the means of achieving this."—[Official Report, 18 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 1034.]

In the meantime a lot is being done to make Royal Ordnance plc more efficient. Its range of products on display last week at the British Army equipment exhibition was very impressive, and I pay tribute to the firm's vigorous pursuit of export opportunities. That has the full support of my Department.

Dr. Keith Hampson: As my hon. Friend knows, there is great anxiety in Leeds. There has been much distress in the company. In view of that, can my hon. Friend explain what took place? On what basis was the change decided, because clearly the privatisation approved by the House will not proceed in the way that it was agreed? Is it because of the Challenger tank order, or are we definitely going ahead with Challenger?

Mr. Lee: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the position clear. A number of factors were taken into account, and it was decided that the time was not appropriate for the flotation that we originally hoped for.
Finally, I shall deal with rationalisation. As part of efficiency drives, we look to ensure that the individual services do not duplicate facilities that could sensibly be undertaken on a unified basis. Successes in this area include catering training, parts of defence medical services and even the defence staffs of the Ministry of Defence itself. I should like to take this opportunity to announce that, having reviewed the proposed move of textile and clothing contracts work from Leeds to Glasgow in the light of comments from several right hon. and hon. Members and the Public Accounts Committee, I have decided that the work will remain in Leeds.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Will my hon. Friend accept the thanks of many people in Leeds for the sound judgment that he, as a textile MP, has shown? It is sensible to leave the textile and clothing branch in Leeds and not to pursue the senseless moving of jobs from one part of Britain to another. I hope that as an engineering MP my hon. Friend will show the same good judgment when he considers the future of the royal ordnance factory at Barnbow and the seventh regiment of Challenger tanks.

Mr. Lee: I am grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) on the retention of the clothing operations in Leeds. There is nothing useful that I can add about the royal ordnance plants in Leeds, but obviously we will take all factors into account.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: The Minister is not normally a devious character, but he was a lot less than frank with his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). If privatisation proceeds, will not Barnbow have to compete in open tender against companies like Vickers at Scotswood on Tyne? That is causing more than a flutter in the dovecotes.

Mr. Lee: We are taking all factors into account in considering the future of tank orders. At this time I have no more to say about that subject. It is my intention that the planned economies and the improved efficiency offered by the move from Leeds to Glasgow shall become priority targets for the Leeds staff.
Hon. Members may be forgiven for overlooking the small box on page 51 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" on energy efficiency. However, the Select Committee on Defence published a memorandum on this subject in its recent report, and I am grateful for this.
The MOD is playing a full part in the Department of Energy's campaign this year. The MOD is a major user and its non-operational energy bill runs at over £240 million a year. It is clearly sensible for the MOD to make the most of potential savings. We have already reduced our consumption by 30 per cent. since the oil crisis of the early 1970s, and, to give further impetus to improvements on energy efficiency, I have recently set up a steering group of senior officers to oversee implementation of an energy efficiency programme with a target of a further 25 per cent. reduction in the MOD's energy bill over the next five years.
I should like to say a few words about MOD support for defence exports. This is understandably an area where commercial confidentiality and the secrecy requirements of customers limit what can be said, but, as I said earlier, defence exports sustain 120,000 jobs in the United Kingdom and this figure is set to rise following the increase of 17 per cent. in real terms in sales last year to £2·9 billion. This is around 9 per cent. of the world market. I pay tribute to the work of our defence export services organisation and to our defence attaches overseas for assisting British industry to this achievement. These figures do not include the outstanding Saudi aerospace deal concluded last year.
I am sure that the House will welcome today's announcement that the Australian army has selected Land Rover to fulfil a £50 million order for a 2,900-vehicle requirement. That order was won in the face of stiff international competition.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: The Minister will be aware of much speculation in the press about the soundness of the Saudi order because of the fall in the price of oil. Can he give a categorical assurance that there is no question of that contract not going ahead?

Mr. Lee: I am not in the business of giving categorical assurances. The Saudi contract is not being renegotiated, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) at Question Time yesterday. The fall in the price of oil has affected the payments for the contract, and an element of discusson is taking place about that.

Mr. McNamara: The Minister says that discussion is taking place on the question of payments. Will he confirm that there is no question of the deal falling through?

Mr. Lee: I have nothing to add to what I have said. With respect to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), we are talking about an extremely serious and major contract.

Mr. McNamara: That is right.

Mr. Lee: Defence Ministers and other members of the Government travel extensively in support of United Kingdom defence exports. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a vigorous and effective supporter of these efforts and played a key role in the Saudi order. In the nearly three years that I have been in post I have visited many contries in support of United Kingdom defence exporters. I have been to Brazil, Ecuador, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, Thailand, Yugoslavia and Zimbabwe, and, of course I have visited a number of NATO countries. [HON.

MEMBERS: "Ha, ha!"] My travel is exceeded only by that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins).
Ministers also support extensively the defence equipment exhibitions. This year has seen the highly successful British Army equipment exhibition, opened last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. During my visit, I unveiled two new armoured vehicles for the export market, and saw many exciting new British products, as did a number of right hon. and hon. Members.
I am sure that we are all looking forward to the best Farnborough air show for many years this September, with, hopefully, three new British aircraft making their flying debuts — the British Aerospace ATP, the Hawk 200, and the EAP.

Mr. Robert Atkins: As my hon. Friend knows, the EAP is the first British fighter for 30 years. Will he do his best, and ask his right hon. Friend to do his best, to ensure that, as with the Hanover air show where the Gennan Chancellor is present and the French exhibition where the French President is present, the Prime Minister will go to Farnborough to witness the flying of the EAP in competition with the Rafale, which is the French version, in order to give the seal of approval to a superb aeroplane which will be the follow-on to the European fighter?

Mr. Lee: I shall endeavour to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend's sensible suggestion.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: The hon. Gentleman referred to the British Army equipment exhibition. Cart he say a little about the nature of those sales, because some equipment appears to be going to countries that are using the equipment not to equip their armies, navies, and so on, but for internal repression? Some of the world's most oppressive regimes send their buyers to such exhibitions. Does that bother the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Lee: We are extremely careful. We endeavour to play cricket and to be fair. Sometimes, we are criticised for that. All items of defence equipment that come up for export need to be licensed. Obviously, we take into account the individual circumstances of the countries which endeavour to purchase. If it is our view that the regime is questionable and that the arms would be used for internal repressive purposes, we do not grant an export licence.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when he plays cricket regarding such exports, he will play better cricket than the English team is doing at the moment?

Mr. Lee: I turn to the re-equipment programmes of the three services.
Since 1979, this Government have ordered 52 warships for the Royal Navy to a total value at today's prices of some £4·5 billion. These include nine frigates— as we have said before, it is our intention to announce further orders for type 23 frigates before the House rises—five nuclear-powered fleet submarines, four diesel-electric submarines, 21 mine counter-measure vessels and, of course, HMS Vanguard, the first Trident submarine. Seven of these vessels have been ordered since last year's White Paper including two further first-of-class vessels —HMS Sandown—a single-role minehunter—and RFA


Fort Victoria — an auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced yesterday that tenders will be sought for up to four more fleet minesweepers.
Aside from the type 23 frigate orders I mentioned, I am happy to confirm to the House that it is our intention to make an announcement on future amphibious capability later this year. I acknowledge the importance attached to this capability by the Defence Select Committee and can confirm that the concept of an aviation support ship is included in our studies. I look forward to spending 24 hours at sea aboard HMS Intrepid later this month to see at first hand the work of the amphibious forces. Fearless and Intrepid are, of course, planned to continue in service until the mid-1990s.
We have not neglected new equipment for the Navy. The Sting Ray lightweight torpedo is now in service, and earlier this year we announced an order with Marconi Underwater Systems Ltd. for more than 2,000 Sting Rays, and development of the Spearfish heavyweight torpedo is continuing. Our existing heavyweight torpedo — the Tigerfish—has demonstrated a notable improvement in performance.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: The sinking of the Lowestoft by Tigerfish was followed by an extremely successful series of sea trials off the coast of Florida. Does my hon. Friend agree that that makes Tigerfish an extremely valuable contender for the contract for the United States navy for a conventional heavyweight torpedo, and that it would be desirable if all efforts, not only of the Marconi company but of our defence sales staff abroad, were made to assist in our gaining what would be a valuable break into the American arms market?

Mr. Lee: I am happy to do what my hon. Friend asks. We wish it well. We expect it to be an effective weapon. It deserves serious consideration by the United States navy. It will have the full support of our Department and our defence export services organisation.

Mr. Keith Speed: Is it not a fact that to maintain a frigate force of 50–I hope that it is 50 and not "about 50" —it is essential to order at least three new frigates a year, unless we are to have a Navy composed of aging Leanders and type 12s which are expensive in terms of fuel and personnel? Therefore, if three type 23 frigates were not ordered this year, all hon. Members and the public would regard with grave suspicion the maintenance of those 50 frigates.

Mr. Lee: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have nothing further to add in terms of orders, except to say that the figure is not 50—I know that my hon. Friend will be sad about that—but is about 50. It is a question of both new orders and the length of time that we decide to run on ships, as my hon. Friend knows.
Our underwater navy — which currently comprises four Polaris SSBNs, 14 nuclear-powered fleet submarines, to be augmented by HMS Torbay around the turn of the year, and 15 diesel-electric submarines—is unquestionably the most powerful outside the two super-powers.
The last year has also seen developments in air defence for the fleet. We have ordered a further seven Phalanx and nine Dutch Goalkeeper close-in weapons systems for

fitting to Her Majesty's ships — bringing the total of these systems ordered to 30 Phalanx and 15 Goalkeeper. We have also ordered a further quantity of Sea Dart area air defence missiles.
The Royal Air Force is now deriving the benefit in front-line service of a major re-equipment programme. Already, nearly 500 RAF aircraft have been ordered since 1979. The centrepiece of this modernisation is the collaborative Tornado aircraft, the strike-attack variant of which—the Tornado GR1 — now equips nine RAF squadrons, three in the United Kingdom and six in Germany.
The Tornado GR1 is capable of the highest levels of performance, as was reflected very satisfactorily for the second year running by Tornado crews from 27 Squadron carrying off the prizes at the USAF strategic air command bombing competition. I give all credit to those involved.
The Tornado GR1's all-weather low-level performance will enable it to penetrate Warsaw pact air defences, should the need arise, and deliver its weapons with great accuracy.
This year has seen the acceptance into service of the prime weapon for the Tornado GR1—the JP233 airfield denial weapon. Also accepted into service this year was the improved version of the BL755 anti-armour cluster bomb —primarily for the Harrier force, but also portable on the Tornado. Studies into a next generation of anti-armour missile are under way.
The first two prototype Harrier GR5 aircraft were delivered to the RAF during the course of last year to commence trials. Production aircraft from the first batch of 60 aircraft currently on order will start delivery next year and a quantity of long lead items for a second batch have recently been ordered. The size of the second batch aircraft order will be decided towards the end of the year. We are also working closely with our American collaborative partners on the GR5 on jointly developing a night attack system for the aircraft.
In the maritime role, the British Aerospace anti-surface ship missile Sea Eagle was accepted into service last year by the RAF's Buccaneer force. The aircraft themselves are being given an avionic update to exploit the full capabilities of this effective missile.
I should like to turn now to air defence. I have mentioned already the successful progress of the collaborative EFA programme. For United Kingdom air defence, deliveries of the Tornado ADV fighter have commenced to the operational conversion unit at RAF Coningsby. The first of seven Tornado fighter squadrons will form next year, and we will be increasing the number of fighters available to the United Kingdom air defence by running on two Phantom squadrons even after all Tornado squadrons are formed. Recently 74 Squadron, with its Phantom F4J aircraft— bought from the USA to compensate for aircraft deployed to the Falklands—became operational. The conversion of Hawk aircraft to carry Sidewinder missiles and a gun to augment air defence assets in war was completed last month by British Aerospace—four months ahead of schedule.
On the ground, the programme to replace completely United Kingdom air defence radars and communications links is well advanced. There is significant financial support from NATO for this. Last year a number of new radars were accepted into service.
Back in the air, the extensive enhancement of air-to-air refuelling capability continues with the completion of


deliveries to the first squadron of VC10 three-point tankers and the delivery of the first three of the first batch of six TriStar strategic tankers. A further three TriStars have been bought and competitions will be held in due course for the conversion of these aircraft and more VC10s to tankers.
However, our greatest concern in air defence is airborne early warning. The House is well aware of the difficulties with the Nimrod AEW programme. The present position is that we have received proposals for AEW systems from six contractors, including GEC Avionics, Boeing, Grumman and Lockheed. Contractors have been asked to submit firm price bids by the beginning of next week, 7 July. There is nothing that I can usefully add at this stage.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I do not want to pre-empt the decision which my hon. Friend must begin to consider on 7 July. However, in view of the reported comments of the Commander-in-Chief, Strike Command, that AEW is "unequivocally", to use his words, -a crucial part of air defence", will my hon. Friend, in considering the choice between the E3, Hawkeye, Orion, Nimrod and Cirumman, assure the House at least that he will be guided solely by the RAF's own criteria of cost, time scale and, above all, performance?

Mr. Lee: I am happy to say that the operational considerations are paramount. We must get the system that is necessary for the defence of this country. Obviously, cost comes into it, but the operational aspects must come first.

Mr. James Couchman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind in making his decision, which we all recognise is crucial, that if the Nimrod system is cancelled per se 2,500 jobs will be at risk, Britain will be excluded from AEW technology for perhaps 30 years and from the potential for exports worth perhaps £2 billion or more and the British taxpayer wil be faced with the cost of a write-off of perhaps £900 million?

Mr. Lee: Of course I understand my hon. Friend's constituency interest, and I say that in the nicest way. I make it clear that we are running a real competition.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend remember that, in every instance in which the RAF has had foisted on it a political choice of aircraft or equipment, in time the choice has been found never to have worked and always to have been costly to maintain and operate? We must not make the same mistake again.

Mr. Lee: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I well remember his comments on our decision to purchase the RAF trainer, the Shorts Tucano.
Turning now to the Army equipment programme, I am pleased to be able to report steady progress in improving and updating the Army's equipment, particularly its armoured vehicles, artillery, air defence, small arms and communications.
Starting with the most important piece of equipment, the mark 1 infantryman, we are equipping him with a new rifle—the SA80 — of which 175.000 were ordered last year and for which further tenders have just been sought from United Kingdom prime contractors. After some problems with setting up large-scale production, the weapon will, we hope, enter service in quantity early next year. In the meantime, weapons are being delivered to our training organisation.
Without wishing to give the impression of favouritism, it nevertheless seems clear to me that the gunners did rather well last year from Army orders. I recently announced the order for three regiments of the multiple-launch rocket system — a very effective depth -fire weapon that will give BAOR a major capability improvement over existing M107 guns. I am very pleased that most of the European offtake, including the United Kingdom's main production order, from this multinational programme will be made in Europe, bringing a total of £250 million of work to the United Kingdom alone. The MLRS programme represents a considerable success for European collaboration and transatlantic co-operation. It is a model for other programmes.
The gunners will benefit also from the battlefield artillery target engagement system—BATES—a kind of clearing house for potential targets, made by Marconi Space and Defence Systems, which was ordered last year. To gather information for BATES and other systems, we also ordered the Phoenix remotely piloted vehicle.
While on the Royal Artillery, I must mention also the SP70 self-propelled gun, whose name, sadly, is increasingly inappropriate and revealing as we go into 1986. The House will wish to be aware that the national armaments directors of the trilateral participating nations are currently reviewing the whole troubled programme and will shortly be putting recommendations to Ministers on the way ahead. From the United Kingdom point of view, we are looking for an effective system to enter service as soon as possible.
We have ordered also, since the previous defence debate, bomblet shells for the artillery which will offer a marked improvement in lethality and coverage over the present high explosive shell, in certain circumstances.
In the anti-tank role, the Challenger main battle tank, with much improved mobility and protection over Chieftain, is now entering service with BAOR in quantity. Six regiments have so far been ordered, and we are considering a seventh. Collaborative studies into the next generation main battle tank are at an early stage. For Challengers that get bogged down, we have ordered — after successful competition last year — a quantity of ARRVs. We hope shortly to place orders for the LAW 80 and collaborative development of the Milan successor., known as TRIGAT, in which, it is hoped, will involve eight European nations. That is expected to be launched at the end of the year. We expect to mount a variant of TRIGAT on the light attack helicopter, on which we hope shortly to sign an agreement to proceed with project definition based on the Al29 helicopter, with the Italians, Dutch and Spanish. In the meantime, more Lynx helicopters fitted with TOW missiles will be entering service during the next 12 months to enhance firepower in the central region.
While on helicopters, I should like to say that our studies of battlefield mobility requirements are being pressed ahead with dispatch, but I am advised by our military experts that a clear way ahead will not emerge before the end of year. For the Royal Corps of Transport, we hope soon to place orders for the DROPS logistic system. The signallers will also be pleased with the entry into service this year of the Plessey Ptarmigan trunk communications system for BAOR. Command and control will be further improved with the Plessey Wavell ADP system, which also entered service last year. As my


right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirmed yesterday the production order with Marconi for the full width attack mine fuse for Barmine is being placed.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: The hon. Gentleman went so fast that I did not realise he had covered helicopters. Is he suggesting that the AST404 has now gone out of the window? Is he aware that he paid tribute to the previous secretary of State for Defence—the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—who took a certain view on Westland? That view does not seem to accord with the one that the hon. Gentleman has presented to us. Does he realise that more than 15 months ago hon. Members on both sides of the House came to see him about the difficulties faced by Westland? Those difficulties still exist. Will the hon. Gentleman please bear in mind that Rolls-Royce has an interest in this and that the RTM322 engine is involved? There has been a very long delay on helicopers.

Mr. Lee: We are fully cognisant of the position at Westland. I was there within the past few weeks to commission the simulator for the EH101 helicopter. I can say nothing further at this juncture about helicopters.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lee: Well, I give way.

Mr. Ashdown: I am sure that the House appreciates fully the hon. Gentleman's generosity in giving way so much. Will he be able to announce in the near future at least the order for the 15 Sea Kings, which has been in the pipeline for so long? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the order is eagerly awaited. I am sure that he must be able to say when the announcement will be made.

Mr. Lee: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because I appreciate his deep and genuine constituency interest in this matter. No decision has been taken on the size and timing of a future Sea King order.
Rounding off my remarks about the Army, I return to the mark 1 infantryman. To lighten his load, we have ordered 23 battalions worth of a combination of the GKN Warrior tracked APC which, with its Rarden cannon in the turret makes a major enhancement to infantry firepower together with the Saxon wheeled APC. All regular infantry units in BAOR will he mechanised with Warrior 4 which accords with the new mobile concept of BAOR defensive operations described in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates".
Also lightening the infantryman's load—in another sense — is the new mark 6 composite-material helmet now in service with units in Northern Ireland and which will gradually replace the unpopular old steel helmet in all three services and the Territorial Army. I am told that our troops are very pleased with the lighter and more comfortable new helmet, which also affords greater protection.
Our forces and the taxpayer are entitled to expect the most efficient and sensible use of our substantial budget. In the past I think it is fair to say that, as a generalisation, our defence industries have had a pretty good innings. We certainly want a prosperous and profitable defence

contracting sector from which to penetrate overseas markets, but the days of cost-plus contracts and bloated progress payments are gone.
A massive advance has been made by this Government on all fronts to tighten our management, our controls and the numbers we employ. Our task is not finished, but our three services and our nation should be proud of what we have achieved.

6 pm

Mr. Kevin McNamara: It would be inappropriate if we did not start today by noting that it is the 70th anniversary of the battle of the Somme. On the first day of that offensive, we suffered 60,000 casualties, 20,000 of them dead. The occasion is a fine one for us to remember that war is too important to be left to generals and it is also important for us to remember the degree of responsibility that we have to our service men when we are conducting this type of debate. Therefore, I believe that the approach taken by both sides of the House is that, when we are looking at this matter, we are looking at what is rationally the best way of defending our country and protecting the lives of our service men.
During that battle, which was to last four and a half months, there were numerous uses of chemical weapons. They were either sprayed across the battlefield or fired by shells, and the results were always horrifying. As Wilfred Owen said:
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud".
It is for that reason that I refer to the last sentence of our amendment which states that we will not, under any circumstances, accept binary chemical weapons in this country, we will not be party to their manufacture and, we will not agree to their being used, in so far as we are able to control it, by members of NATO.

Mr. Churchill: rose——

Mr. McNamara: I will give way to those people who were here for the debate yesterday. Time is limited. I have specifically reduced the amount I was going to say on chemical warfare because other hon. Members will want to make their point. I am merely establishing the principle of where we stand. I will give way to people who were here yesterday but otherwise I will get on with the debate.

Mr. Viggers: rose——

Mr. McNamara: I will not give way to that hon. Gentleman until he publicly apologises to me, as he did in private.
Yesterday, the Under-Secretary referred to the conduct and quality of the armed forces and the help being given to them. Yesterday he paid proper attention to the help that has been given with regard to low wages and said that a review has been established to look into the pay and allowances. The Opposition welcome that review. Whatever the excuses, ideas or rationale behind it, for service men in Germany the cut in the overseas allowance was a cut in their wages. It was a cut in the basis on which they had budgeted for themselves and their families and it was a real cut, no matter how much we may rationalise it in the House. Therefore, ways of trying to meet that sort of problem for our service men in Germany have to be examined carefully.
The Under-Secretary did not mention a matter which has been to the forefront in the press over the past three


or four weeks—allegations of colour discrimination in the armed forces, in their promotion policies and in their recruitment policies. Reading the replies we got from the Under-Secretary, one almost felt that one was in a "Catch-22" situation. The House will remember the background of "Catch-22" and the American airmen who felt that they had flown too many missions:
Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was to ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to.
That is the same Catch-22 we have had from the Ministry in reply to the questions on racial discrimination. According to the Race Relations Act 1976, all recruitment and promotion is based solely on merit. However, ethnic minorities are hardly ever promoted. There is no discrimination in the armed forces because the Ministry of Defence is an equal opportunities employer, even though no ethnic minorities were represented in the trooping of the colour and none will take part in ceremonial duties outside Buckingham palace, except the Regiment of Ghurkas. Very few are senior NCOs and career officers within the armed forces.
If any discrimination did occur, we are told, the individual could have his case investigated under the redress of grievances procedure. Since no cases have been brought under the redress of grievances procedure, obviously there is no discrimination. As there is no discrimination, there is no need for this type of ethnic monitoring system to ensure equality. That was the rationale and reasoning behind the replies of the Ministry of Defence. However, it was the Prime Minister who put the bomb below the Ministry's position because she said in reply to me:
The possibility of introducing ethnic monitoring to the armed forces is being considered as part of their routine duties by those in the Ministry of Defence who are responsible for service personnel, policies and practices."—[Official Report. Friday 20 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 659.]
If there is no discrimination or complaint, why should the Prime Minister think it is necessary to have a routine inquiry into it? Evidently, there is discrimination in the armed forces, so a deadlock is introduced.
It seems to the Opposition that a system must be set up to look seriously into ethnic recruitment within the armed forces, not on the basis of positive discrimination to ensure that people who are not capable or able to do the job are promoted, but to ensure that those who are capable and able are promoted. The argument that the Ministry puts forward—that all promotion is on merit—is insulting to the ethnic minorities in this country, because it suggests that they have no merit and are not worthy of being considered as senior NCOs and commissioned ranks. The Observer said that it is no longer enough for organisations such as the Ministry of Defence to say blandly that they do not discriminate, without providing monitoring evidence to support the assertion.
It is interesting that nearly 100 flag and field officers in the United States armed forces are black and Major-General Blunt, a black officer in the United States armed forces, said:
Until the leadership of the British Army make the decision to open up the higher ranks of the Army to Blacks, there will he racial problems in the British Army.
I would go so far as to say that there will be racial problems within the United Kingdom. If we regard the

armed forces as the first strength and first organisation to protect our country and our people, if blacks and Asians can be in that force it shows that they have been accepted as responsible citizens within our society. That is more fundamental perhaps than any of the other positive policies that are being considered in the United Kingdom.
The Under-Secretary made an interesting statement about the aviation support: vessel. It is an interesting concept. I do not want to pursue it too much now, but perhaps his right hon. Friend the Minister will address it when he replies. Is it merely a helicopter support ship? Is it the Arapaho proposal taken and examined or is it a mini-carrier? What exactly does it refer to?
In listening to the Under-Secretary I was also interested to hear what he had to say about the future of the European fighter aircraft. That point was interesting because, in the wording of page 7 of the report of the Select Committee on Defence, there is a query over the European fighter aircraft's future. In reply to a question from the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) the Secretary of State said:
None of us would regard ourselves as fully committed or firmly committed at all to the next stages. That will have to be taken when it arises. But it is the case that in the next three years ahead there is a small amount of expenditure on development, experimental work, etc.".
In discussions on this matter the Under-Secretary of State said that, when the Ministry comes to the end of project definition at the beginning of the autumn, it will then consider which course should be taken.
As I understand it, there has already been slippage in this matter. I was originally under the impression that the decision was to be taken at the beginning of the year and that we would then talk about firm orders and manufacturing capability. Now, because of slippage, I understand that the contracted parties are not likely to take a decision until the middle of next year at the earliest. Is that correct? What does that mean in terms of programme slippage? Does it mean, as the Opposition suspect, that there will be no firm orders until after 1988? If that is the case, that will represent yet another Government cut.
I was also interested to read about Skynet in the Estimates and the White Paper. As a result of the accidents involving Challenger and Aria ne, there has been a setback in our hopes for our satellites. It is important that we should have an independent defence capability. I would therefore like to raise the issue of HOTOL as a possible replacement for the two systems to which I have already referred.
Why has the Ministry of Defence not taken a more positive interest in the HOTOL development? If HOTOL is to have a future, the project must be important to our defence, as it will be able to get our satellites—which are necessary for defence — quickly, efficiently and cheaply into the sky.
We have been told that the Americans at NASA have decided to take on board the same concept and are pouring vast funds into the air orient express. We would like to think that the Ministry of Defence is as active in seeking European support for HOTOL as the French are in seeking interest in their Hermes project. HOTOL appears to be far more interesting and to hold out greater hope for our defence and for satellite communications than Hermes. It would also be a great step forward for the Ministry of Defence.
The Secretary of State was remarkably coy yesterday about star wars. That is understandable, as the whole scene has changed since the former Secretary of State for Defence trumpeted that we would have $1·5 billion-worth of orders for SDI coming to British industry. The retiring British ambassador to the United States was quoted in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday as saying:
He rates Anglo-American negotiations over President Reagan's 'Star Wars' project one of the major achievements of the past four years, with Britain taking part 'not just as a contractor but a partner'.
Great! Star wars will involve some $26 billion, which is an astronomical sum of money, and we will be involved as a partner.
However, it turns out that we are to be a limited partner, a partner limited to such an extent that the contracts that we have received arising from the secret memorandum of understanding are less than I per cent. or 0·5 per cent. of the $1·5 billion that was recently announced. In fact, the programme has been so disastrous that the Ministry has been forced to bring into the Department from outside industry Mr. Jim Powell of British Aerospace to rescue the British component of SDI as envisaged by the Ministry. Understandably, the Secretary of State was coy on this matter, and understandably, there was little discussion of it from the Under-Secretary of State when he considered its progress.
Frankly, the Opposition believe that British industry is correct to take a caustic and suspicious view of SDI. It is seen by British industry as little more than a confidence trick to drain away our technology and, perhaps more importantly, our technologists. It has been sold by President Reagan as a non-nuclear defence system. That is its logic. Yet it can only work, according to the Americans, if there are nuclear explosions in space to generate the necessary X-rays and laser beams.
The whole world now knows that SDI is dangerous and expensive nonsense. It is dangerous for world peace because it accelerates the arms race, and is dangerous for British industry because it can seduce away our technicians and technology. I am pleased that British industry is regarding it very carefully.

Sir Humphrey Atkins: If highly skilled people in this country want to take part in this kind of research and development and our firms do not take part, will these people not go to America anyway?

Mr. McNamara: They may indeed do that. Unlike the Russians, we do not have any prohibition on the free transfer of our citizens. If they wish to go to America, that is a matter for them. If they want to be seduced by the almighty dollar, there is nothing we can do about it, any more than we can do anything about the departure of our surgeons or physicians. However, there are compensations other than the size of one's bank balance for living in this country; otherwise, why would the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) and other hon. Members be here? We look forward to the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) is Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) is Secretary of State for Defence.
The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State were very coy about Nimrod and the future of the early warning system, yet it is of the utmost importance to this

country. The Under-Secretary said that the tenders would be received by 7 July. Will they be the final tenders? How and when will the decision be reached? As I understand it, the Ministry of Defence is sending a team to Long Island in the second and third week of this month to consider what Grumman is doing at Bethpage. If the Ministry is doing that, how quickly will we get a decision? Will a decision be made this month as was originally envisaged?

Mr. Lee: indicated dissent.

Mr. McNamara: The Under-Secretary of State shakes his head, so it appears that the decision will not be taken this month. The Under-Secretary gave an under taking—

Mr. Lee: I hope that we will be able to announce a decision by the autumn.

Mr. McNamara: That is the kind of slippage that I welcome. I am grateful for the Under-Secretary's remarks and for the undertaking which he gave during the previous defence Question Time that the decision will be announced in the House. He gave that undertaking to me and I am grateful for it.

Mr. Lee: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman is not correct. I gave an undertaking to draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I said that would be normal practice to make such an announcement in the House. However, I did not give a categorical assurance.

Mr. McNamara: So something will be slipped out in the summer or in the early autumn when the House is in recess and there will be no announcement in the House.

Mr. Donald Thompson: The hon. Member should not be cantankerous.

Mr. McNamara: I like to see Government Whips sitting on the Front Bench telling people not to be cantankerous, when all they do is mutter away, either criticising their own party for letting them down or criticising the Opposition for putting them in their place. Really, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) should not speak in that way.
Nimrod is a very important matter for this country. It is important because there is a continuing gap in our defences which must be filled. It is important because the amounts of money dependent on the decisions made could affect defence expenditure in other important areas. The situation has not been helped by the Government moving the goal posts, just as they did over the PC9, the RAF trainer. Thus, I hope that the goal posts will not be moved again.
The Under-Secretary of State spoke about the various options, but if the order does not go to GEC, it will be a major blow for British industry. Indeed, the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), who has part of GEC avionics in his constituency, spoke about that in his intervention to the Under-Secretary of State. If the order does not go to GEC, important investments made partly by the Government and partly by the company will be written off. It will mean that two companies effectively in the United States only will be recognised as being able to produce that type of radar. Europe will be out of the running for a long time. It will also mean that the heavy investment made in RAF Waddington will have been


wasted, even though the equipment has already been delivered and is in use. It has even been suggested that the future of RAF Waddington may be in question.
In order to meet the minimum RAF requirement, I understand that £250 million is required now for GEC, and a further £150 million is required to meet the original air staff requirement. That must be considered against a possible cost of £1·5 billion if we go for an American system. We are talking about 2,000 jobs and about leaving the field clear for the Americans. Europe would be contracting out of one of the most important areas of development in terms of defence and electronics generally.

Mr. Lee: Where does the £1·5 billion cost of purchasing an American system come from? What authority does the hon. Gentleman have for making that statement?

Mr. McNamara: That is a good question. The figure is based on the information that we could get. Indeed, I shall come to that point in a few moments. It is all a question of the amount of information available to the House, which in turn affects the level and quality of our debates. Indeed, I shall make the point now. The House lacks any proper informed discussion before decisions are made. We discuss issues after the Government have made decisions and have placed contracts. But the House and its Committees do not look at the on-line costs of major schemes. We have no outside way of monitoring the schemes. We have no way of looking at the way in which defence decisions are made. That point must be considered.

Mr. Lee: That may well be a subject for wider discussion another time, but I specifically asked the hon. Gentleman where he got the figure of £1·5 billion from. Is it just a figure that he has plucked from the air?

Mr. McNamara: That figure was authoritatively given to me by one of the groups interested in this matter.

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is saying— —

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. With respect, the Under-Secretary of State made a long speech. Many hon. Members are waiting to take part in the debate. I wonder whether some of those points could be left until the Minister replies to the debate.

Mr. McNamara: I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I turn to the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State about defence cuts. He told us that he would be realistic. Yet everything that he said, in effect, cut our ability in conventional defence in favour of Trident. In the statement on the Defence Estimates, we are told that the Warsaw pact has 16,600 main battle tanks to NATO's 7,800. That is a ratio of more than 2:1 in favour of the Warsaw pact. Yesterday, the cancellation of the LAW mine was announced, together with a reduction in provision for future mine systems which could help to defeat a conventional attack. But if we do not have such conventional defences, the possibility of nuclear retaliation as a result of a flexible response is increased.
The Government have cut our conventional forces and our conventional capability in order to maintain Trident. The Defence Estimates claim that the Warsaw pact has a 2:1 advantage in terms of tactical fixed-wing aircraft. Yet yesterday, we were told that the second Harrier batch is

likely to be postponed. We already know that the provision of the Tornado for the RAF is being considerably postponed in order to meet the Saudi order.
We are talking about cuts in our conventional forces and in our ability to meet a conventional attack, merely in order to fund Trident. The White Paper says that the Soviets have a 2·3: I advantage because of submarines. Yet yesterday, we were told that the type 22 frigates will not have the new advanced sonar ray system. The Minister cannot tell us when we shall get the frigates that we need. We are told that the Navy will have "about 50" frigates instead of the 50 that we were promised. What does "about 50" mean? Does it mean forty-seven, forty-eight or forty-nine? We know that the Government are reneging yet again.
Indeed, the Government are reneging on the commitment to conventional defences and are thus increasing the possibility of a nuclear war. They are lowering the nuclear threshold in order to pursue the ephemeral idea that Trident is somehow important to this country's defence. They somehow think that a weapon of suicide is necessary.
The pivot of Labour's collective defence policy is membership of NATO. That membership will be continued and strengthened under a Labour Government, while we pursue our policy of maintaining and strengthening our conventional forces, and of unilateral nuclear disarmament. We shall negotiate with our American allies the removal of their nuclear weapons systems from the United Kingdom. The Labour party recognises and accepts that facilities in the United Kingdom that are given to the United States are for the joint collective defence of western Europe. American bases in the United Kingdom are here for NATO purposes. Labour is quite happy to see them maintained for NATO purposes and for uses originally envisaged by the Alliance, provided that all nuclear weaponry is withdrawn.
However, the use of United Kingdom bases for United States out-of-area purposes— that is, out of the NATO treaty area—are ventures that were not envisaged in the original exchange of notes establishing United States bases in the United Kingdom. The Labour party therefore believes that, given our non-nuclear defence policy and the fact that the use of bases for non-NATO purposes is contrary to the original spirit of establishing them in the United Kingdom, there will have to be a more formal discussion with the United States and the establishment of an open treaty outlining the limits and the extent to which the United States bases in the United Kingdom can be used within the role originally assigned to them, particularly in the light of the Libyan adventure.
We say "particularly in the light of the Libyan adventure", because out-of-area activities by NATO were specifically drawn in by the United States when NATO was being considered. At the time, the United States did not want to be drawn into colonial wars as Britain, France, Holland and Belgium divested themselves of their empires. Equally, we do not want to be drawn into what many people regard as the United States' colonial and misjudged wars.
We are not in favour of the United States supporting terrorism in Nicaragua. We think that the votes for that were wrong and will only destroy those very ideals so nobly called for in the Declaration of Independence.

Mr. Couchman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have requested us to be brief. I have already given way once——

Mr. Couchman: rose——

Mr. McNamara: I understand that the hon. Gentleman spoke yesterday, so I shall not give way; I want people to understand the position of the Labour party.
Yesterday, many hon. Members said that the United States would, in a fit of pique, remove all its weapons and go home if we asked it to take away its nuclear weapons. but I have a higher regard for that country than to think it would act in that way.
Other things in the United Kingdom are more important to the United States than even its nuclear bases and the F111 s. One of them is Cheltenham. The United States ability to use our facilities in Cyprus is also more important to it than its nuclear bases. The Americans are hard-headed enough when negotiating to know that these matters are far more important. We can think and talk about them, because we are allies, but we are determined that eventually United States nuclear weapons will go, as ours will go.
The United States belongs to NATO for the same reason as the United Kingdom belongs to NATO. The United States regards it as being in its national interest to belong to NATO. When the United States decides that it is no longer in its national interest to remain a part of NATO, it will probably pick up its baseball bats and go home. It would be improper for the United States to be engaged in an alliance that it did not feel was in the strategic and economic interests of its people. We understand that. That is what alliances are made for. When the United States reaches that decision, whether it has nuclear bases in this country will matter not one jot. Should the population of the United States drift towards the Pacific coast and believe that its future is tied up with the Pacific basin, even the possession by the United States of a million nuclear bases in this country would not affect that decision.

Mr. Couchman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Couchman: rose—

Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have requested us to be brief. I have already given way once— —

Mr. Couchman: rose——

Mr. McNamara: The Labour party will have nothing to do with binary chemical weapons. A Labour Government will negotiate with our United States allies the withdrawal of its nuclear weapons from this country. If the United States wants this country to provide other facilities for it, we shall try to reach an open agreement with it. But the House and the people will know about that agreement. It will not be secret. Furthermore, the decisions that are taken will not be secret.
I had intended to say to the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)—who cannot be here, unfortunately, for very proper reasons, and who has made his apologies to both sides of the House—that one of the reasons for the failure of acceptance of Chevaline and other nuclear weapons in this country was that the British people did not know what was being decided on their behalf. Had the right hon. Gentleman been here, I should have said to him that, whatever side he took in the argument over Chevaline, it is certain that the decision that he reached in secret with some of my right hon. Friends was one of the reasons for the Labour party

debacle which forced him to leave the party. The decision was taken in secret because my right hon. Friends knew how the Labour party felt about the matter. Nevertheless, that decision was taken.
We cannot support the White Paper. The Estimates are based upon the fallacy that the Government will be able to retain their conventional commitments but still push through Trident. We do not believe that that can be done, nor do we believe that this country can go forward in that way. The Opposition believe that until this country abandons the strange idea that it is still in the super-power class and stops hankering for the maintenance of its own nuclear deterrent, it will never come to terms with its proper role and place in the world. We shall be unable to face the real challenges because we shall still be hankering after past glories that we can no longer achieve. That is what the policy of the Secretary of State for Defence is all about—glories that we shall never be able to achieve. Thereby, the real defence of our country is put at risk.

Mr. Julian Amery: Well, now we know. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I must express gratitude to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for the very clear way in which he has laid the policy of the Labour party on the table — no British nuclear weapons, unilateral cancellation and the removal of American nuclear facilities from this country. However, we would remain a member of NATO and rely upon American protection in NATO.
NATO's strategy is dependent upon American nuclear power, whether exercised on the continent or from the United States. I am not sure, therefore, what is meant by the Labour party's commitment to the removal of American nuclear facilities from this country. We would lose the goodwill of the United States, which regards us as a valid member of the Alliance. If I were considering the matter from the point of view of the Pentagon, I might think that that rather wiser Socialist leader, Felipe Gonzalez, would be a better bet than the Labour party. The Americans might therefore move their nuclear facilities to Spain. This is the most inconsequential strategy that has ever been propounded on the Floor of the House of Commons since somebody suggested at the time of Tobruk that the Duke of Gloucester should be made commander-in-chief.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, referred not once, but three or four times, to the "nonsense" of the strategic defence initiative. When the most powerful country in the world decides to pledge billions of dollars to the strategic defence initiative, surely a little more humility would be in order before reaching a judgment about whether this project is nonsense.
When this country is considering arms control and defence, one is worried about what is happening at Geneva and about the arms race. We have to ask ourselves what is behind the arms race and what caused it. I shall illustrate briefly what I believe to be the cause of the arms race.
I visited Romania in 1972 with my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), where we talked to the Vice-President of Romania, a hardened Communist leader. He attached great importance to developing trade relations with the West. He said, "If you really want detente, you must always be a bit stronger than the Warsaw pact." He explained this in simple terms. He said that the dominant force in the Soviet Union is the military


and industrial complex, though not for ideological reasons. It is a praetorian guard that defends the regime, and the generals, field marshals, colonels, scientists, managers and others have more access to privilege and perquisites than anybody else in Soviet countries. Therefore they have to justify their existence, and wherever there is a chance for them to expand they will take it. So he said, "Do not give them the chance. Always be just a little bit stronger than they are."
This was in the period of the Nixon-Kissinger detente. There was a rough balance between the two sides. When that period passed, we entered into what I might call loosely the Carter era, when the United States, Britain —under a Labour Government—and other countries in NATO lowered their guard, while the Soviets did nothing of the kind. We opened a window of opportunity to the Soviets, which they were quick to exploit and of which they were quick to take advantage.
There was a daring Soviet operation in Angola. The Soviets married up 20,000 Cuban troops with a huge load of Soviet weaponry — at great risk to themselves but successfully. They consolidated their base at Aden. They took a grip on Ethiopia and waged a successful war, again with surrogates, against Somalia. They established a base in Cam Ranh in Vietnam and encouraged the Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchea, but what shook us most was their invasion of Afghanistan with Red Army forces. Not content with all that, they went on to put a lot of arms and money through surrogates into Nicaragua.
Afghanistan woke up the West at last when the United States began to rearm, and so did we in western Europe, and President Reagan—all credit to him—set about restoring a balance of power in military terms in the world, a balance of what I think is called in Marxist circles the correlation of forces—not just in hardware, although that was most important, but in active support for the national liberation movements in Angola, in Afghanistan, in Nicaragua and, I hope, shortly in Ethiopia, where the resettlement policy, encouraged by the Marxist Government, has killed as many people as the famine did last year.
I hope that we will give all the help that we can to the generous initiatives of the United States to help people defend themselves against the Communist tyrannies imposed on them from the outside. Our SAS has very good experience of the technologies that should be used in this direction. It is worth noting that the Chinese take a similar view, at any rate on Kampuchea and Afghanistan.
I think that we ought to look at arms control and regional problems together. Of course we want to see the burden of the arms race diminished, but I think that we also want to see comparable concessions from the Soviet side in what I call the regional conflicts that have destroyed the limited detente that existed in the early part of the last decade. So far, I see no sign of that.
The Soviets have reinforced Angola for the latest offensive against UNITA, they have sent more troops into Afghanistan than ever before and they have tightened their grip on Ethiopia. I think that this is a situation that we cannot accept. It goes to the heart of the problem of arms control.
Mr. Gorbachev faces a crucial dilemma. He faces immense economic difficulties at home, exacerbated by the fall in the price of oil, which has diminished by about 30 per cent. the Soviets' capacity to earn hard currency. There is no way in which he can compete in an arms race—

unless, of course, he abandons any attempt to reform his own economy, and we have no particular interest in seeing him reform his economy while he remains in the position in which he is.
Arms control and regional solutions should go hand in hand. We want to see the Soviets out of Angola, out of Ethiopia, out of Afghanistan, and out of Kampuchea. I am sure that the Americans will look after Nicaragua themselves. The correlation of forces at the present time is increasingly favourable to the position that we are in. One notes the rather interesting speech that Mr. Gorbachev made in Warsaw, I think, the day before yesterday. He said that he was not acting under pressure —he went out of his way to stress that. The truth is that he is acting under pressure, and it is because the correlation of forces is favourable to the West in a way that it was not in President Carter's time that he is prepared to begin to talk and to discuss. It is for that reason that he has not run out of the Geneva talks, in spite of all the threats. It is for that reason that he has not abandoned the summit.

Mr. Dubs: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Nicaragua and said, if I heard him correctly, that the Americans will look after Nicaragua. Is he saying that Nicaragua, a free and independent country, is somehow to have its affairs looked after by another power? Surely he does not mean that. Surely peace in the world depends upon countries being able to develop on their own without outside interference or the threat of outside attack.

Mr. Amery: I was saying just that, because I do not think that Nicaragua is a free and independent country. It is being subverted from outside. There is a strong Cuban and east European presence in there which has built up an army and the beginnings of an air force on really quite a threatening scale. When we begin to talk about intervening in the affairs of other countries, I do not know what the hon. Member's position is about South Africa, but it seems to me that everyone is quite prepared to play at that game at the momemt.
What worries me about this debate is the pressure under which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State finds himself to cut back on defence. He says that this is realistic. The same thing is happening in the United States. Congress is trying to cut back on the defence budget, and elections are coming along in the United States — and they are not all that far away here. If we relax, one can be sure that the Soviets will consolidate the gains that they have made and use them as springboards for the next advance. Where will it be — in Iran, in the Sudan, in Thailand? I do not know.
My right hon. Friend is beset by powerful adversaries. On the one hand there are those who want to cut taxation, and on the other there are those who want to increase expenditure on social services. They do not agree with each other, but they are absolutely agreed on one thing, and that is to cut back on defence, alas, yet the first priority is to maintain the security of our country. We should heed the advice given to me by the late Vice-President of Romania, "If you want detente, you must keep an edge over the Soviet Union."

Mr. Jack Ashley: The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said


that he would like to broaden the scope of the debate a little. I should like to do the opposite and narrow the scope of it a little. It is a great strength of the House that we can discuss a wide range of issues, as the right hon. Gentleman has just done, and simultaneously listen to one specific aspect of the problems confronting us.
I want to ask the House to listen to a short speech on abolishing section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, because this prevents service personnel who have been disabled by negligence from suing for damages. I am speaking of those who are on non-combatant duties. When service men are in battle, it is an acceptable doctrine that they should not be able to sue for negligence. That is very difficult to do. I am speaking of service personnel on non-combatant duties, who are deprived of their rights. I believe that it is wrong to do this when they are engaged in day-to-day duties.
The consequence of section 10 is that they receive grossly inadequate compensation. The Ministry of Defence argues that the pensions provided are adequate and are a substitute for compensation, but of course this is nonsense. My constituent, Mr. Martin Ketterick, who has been gravely disabled by alleged negligence, is receiving by way of pension only one third of what he would receive if he were able to sue for negligence. Other public servants, notably police and firemen, receive a pension and are able to sue for negligence.
A further consequence of section 10 is that disabled service men, disabled ex-service men or the relatives of those who are killed by negligence are denied information, and some of them are treated with disdain and arrogance by senior officers. I have abundant evidence to prove that point.
The arguments by the Ministry of Defence for preserving section 10 are ludicrous. It says, first, that there is no reasonable dividing line between military action and other duties; secondly, that to abolish section 10 would endanger discipline; thirdly, that its abolition would create anomalies; and fourthly, that service men may not be able to prove negligence. The first point is nonsense— any service man could tell the difference. Secondly, discipline has nothing to do with legal redress. Thirdly, the Ministry blithely disregards the anomalies that exist when a service man cannot sue, whereas other public servants can. Fourthly, whether a service man can prove his case is a matter for a court of law to decide, as happens with other public servants.
It is interesting that the Ministry of Defence has been reviewing section 10 since October 1983 — for nearly three years. Since then I have tabled parliamentary questions, I have initiated a parliamentary debate and I have tabled early-day motions. I have also taken a deputation to see the Secretary of State. None of those actions has produced one word from the Ministry. When the deputation met the Secretary of State on 20 February this year he listened attentively and we thought that we had had a good hearing, but since then we have had nothing positive from the Department. In a parliamentary answer on 17 June the Under-Secretary said that the review was well advanced, but the Ministry was unable to give a date for its completion. The delay by the Ministry is a condemnation of its ability to make decisions. There is no point in the Ministry saying that this is a complex issue. Most issues are complex.
To take three years to decide on such an issue is preposterous. It raises the question of what the Ministry of Defence has to hide. I can disclose tonight that the Ministry of Defence has taken action, but it is surreptitious and deplorable. It has put a blackout on public information.
Two weeks ago, on 17 June, I went to No. 10 Downing street with representatives of the Section Ten Abolition Group, which I helped to establish in the House of Commons with disabled ex-service men and relatives of others who have been killed, to present a petition. After the petition was presented, I was told that recruiting officers in the Ministry of Defence had been instructed by the Ministry not to be drawn by recruits or their parents on section 10. They had been instructed to stonewall and to say that section 10 was under review. In other words, on an issue which could have profound effects upon the future of recruits, recruiting officers have strict instructions to say nothing. I invite the Minister to confirm, or deny, that story, now or when he replies to the debate.
What is even worse is that a disabled ex-service man who has suffered because of section 10 has been threatened by the Ministry of Defence. He has been ordered to keep quiet. Mr. John Meredith works as a civil servant in the Royal Artillery school. He has given devoted service to the armed forces. He enlisted as a boy in 1941 and was discharged in 1971, after 30 years service to the Army. He was registered disabled in 1972. He feels very bitter about section 10. which prevents him from suing for negligence. He feels equally bitter about the effort to gag him. The day before he came to see me and to present that petition to the Prime Minister, Mr. Meredith was threatened by a senior official that he must not say anything detrimental to the Crown. He was warned that if he did so he would lose his service pension, his disability pension and his job. He was ordered to put into writing what he was doing the following day when he came to London to discuss the issue.
The Ministry of Defence is behaving like a bully because it knows that, as the implications of section 10 become more well known, it will be widely condemned in the House and outside.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have much sympathy with the case that the right hon. Gentleman is advancing. Can he tell the House why Mr. Meredith, to whom he has referred at length, is contesting his position and the amount of disability allowance that he should receive from the Ministry of Defence? If the right hon. Gentleman did so——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Winterton: —it would enable the House to come to a more considered opinion of the case.

Mr. Ashley: I appreciate the question. The point is that Mr. Meredith was severely disabled and under section 10 has been denied the right to sue. I cannot give exact figures, because he is not my constituent, but I have been associated with him and he has no doubt that if he were able to sue he would get far more than he is getting from the Ministry now. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when I referred to Martin Ketterick, but he can get only one third of what he might


have expected had he been able to sue. That was worked out by an actuary. I hope that that answers the question satisfactorily, even though I cannot give figures.
The Ministry is behaving abominably in trying to gag Mr. Meredith. The Ministry will not frighten him, because he is determined to speak out. The Minister should look into my allegation and give an answer this evening. The issue will be pursued.
The Section Ten Abolition Group is doing the job that should be done by the Ministry of Defence. The Ministry has a duty to inform all service personnel of the implications of section 10, so that they know their rights. STAG is putting advertisements in local newspapers telling service men and potential recruits of the implications of section 10. Some hon. Members and the Ministry of Defence do not like those advertisements, but they are simply stating the facts. To conceal the truth is to mislead. Therefore STAG is right to make the facts known. It is immoral to try to hide the truth, as the Ministry is trying to do, by showing its displeasure at the whole affair.
When he replies to the debate, the Minister should tell the House whether the Ministry is prepared to issue pamphlets or to indicate in some way to service personnel or to recruits exactly what section 10 means. The Minister has tried to put the case to me, but he should explain to all these people exactly what is happening.
Finally — I am sorry if I have taken longer than intended— the removal of section 10 will enable those who are entitled to compensation to receive it. I think that that would mark the end of the carelessness, arrogance and secrecy that we have seen. If I had time I could horrify the House with some of the letters from senior officers who have written, with disdain, to the widows of men who have been killed, stating that they had no right to information on how their husband was killed. That is appalling arrogance, and senior officers have no right to speak like that. There is a callousness in the services because senior officers are protected by section 10.
I hope that the Ministry of Defence will stop living in the past, complete the necessary reviews and give service men their rights. I want these rights in peace time, for noncombatant duties and not when people are at war. In peace time, they are as entitled to those rights as are other public servants.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that the ten minutes rule on the length of speeches became effective at 7 o'clock.

7 pm

Mr. David Crouch: The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is perfectly correct, in a debate on the Defence Estimates, although we are talking about matters concerning £18 billion, Trident, Tornado, and type 23 frigates, to raise the issue of disabled persons. It is right that the cases of individuals in the armed services should be mentioned if there is a case to be heard.
This evening I shall observe your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and speak for no more than 10 minutes. Indeed, I have not prepared myself to speak for longer. We are discussing the Defence Estimates. It is one thing to consider expenditure figures, as we are doing, but another to see that we get value for money.
I spent last week in the Falkland Islands. I was invited, together with other hon. Members from both sides of the

House, by the Secretary of State for Defence to see something of what is done by the Falklands defence force. It was a remarkable experience. It was remarkable to see how the three services in the Falklands worked together, completely harmonised and in a state of high readiness, great alertness and war preparedness. None of us could have failed to be impressed by what we saw. We were impressed by the sophistication of the equipment and the skill of those who operate that equipment. There are not many people there—either men nor women—but the quality of those in the defence force is outstanding.
The maintenance of this force is of course expensive, because a modern integrated defence system is expensive. That expense is added to by the 8,000 miles that separates Britain from the Falklands. It is therefore especially expensive to maintain that defence force, but I argue that it could be much more expensive if the force was less sophisticated, less efficient or less well integrated and harmonised.
The cost of defending the Falklands could also be less expensive if we were able to achieve better, more normal relations with Argentina — the potential enemy which lies across the water. Until those better relations are achieved, the cost of defending the Falklands will be a burden — a necessary burden — that will figure in our Defence Estimates.
It can be levelled as a criticism of the islanders that they require such an expensive operation to safeguard their shores, but it is not just to safeguard those islanders. The force is there to safeguard a British independent territory. I hope that we can improve our relations with Argentina and so reduce the tension, the threat and therefore the need to maintain our forces at such a high state of readiness. Equally, Argentina should recognise that the defence of the Falklands is an established fact made necessary by its invasion of the islands four years ago. The Argentine Government and people should also recognise that there is no question of our discussing the sovereignty of the islands. We should talk to them about re-establishing good relations.
I have talked of the military operation in the Falklands, and I wanted its reality, its effectiveness and its necessity to be heard of in this country, where questions are being asked about whether we should spend the money on it. I wanted its reality, effectiveness and necessity to be heard of in the Argentine, where a sense of unreality about the Falklands Islands still persists. I wanted to report my impressions of the armed forces—the men, women and the equipment. In my view they are outstanding and more than a match for the threat that they face.
I believe that we should seek to strive to reduce that threat. I told the Falkland Islanders whom I met—the councillors and members of the Falkland Islands Committee — that in my part of England Kent and Sussex —we once built a series of forts to defend our Channel shores against the threat of invasion by Napoleon. Today those forts — Martello towers — are empty and our relations with France are friendly. The threat has gone. That is an exaggerated example, but it is an example, nevertheless. We are even building a tunnel for even better and closer relations with the French, although it is not improving my relations with the people of Kent.
I wish to make two points about our impressions. One concerns the state of morale of our forces, who are 8.000 miles away from home. The post service is vital, and hat


was stressed to us all the time. If it is so much as one day late, morale goes down very fast—the commander told us that. At present, delays are cut to a minimum and it takes about five days for mail to get there. That is accepted as pretty good. There is no delay once the mail gets there, despite the island's size. It is approximately the size of Wales and there are many outposts to which mail must be delivered. The mail service must be kept regular, efficient and fast.
The second matter that I wish to raise is that of Falklands Islands pay. I know that it is called theatre pay and that it is not much liked by the Ministry or by the serving officers. It is not paid for the first four-month tour of duty—that is the tour of duty on the Falklands—but only on the second tour of duty, provided that that second tour occurs within 18 months. If it is so much as one day over that limit, service men or women do not get service Falklands pay. There is a rumble of criticism about it. Some cases of unfairness can be found and some chaps have just missed out by two or three days. This situation needs to be studied by the Ministry, together with service personnel, to see what can be done to relieve that small criticism.
Finally, a little more entertainment would be appreciated by the forces on the Falklands. I was told that videos of the World Cup take seven weeks to get out there. That really is a bit too long. Wives and girlfriends can and have illegally taped those matches, even between England and Argentina, and have got them out there to their service husbands or boyfriends. If they can do that, the Ministry of Defence could probably get them out there more efficiently.
Sir Harry Secombe has been to the Falklands and was much appreciated. The type of entertainment that is required is what I would call a night club type of entertainment—[Interruptioni] When I was there it was pretty well night all the time— that is, when it was not blowing a force 11 gale. Perhaps another description, to please hon. Members, would be a northern club type of entertainment. It needs someone who can work a club in an intimate style, because that is the only space that there is to work.
Those are my impressions—impressions involving a little politics and a lot of praise.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I shall make some reference to the Royal Navy, in particular, to the 50-ship navy, or, as we now call it, the "about 50-ship navy," more or less. Less, we all suspect.
As the House knows, four shipyards are tendering for the future type 23s. With the considerable economies of scale that accrue to the Ministry of Defence in placing more than one order with the same yard, it is obvious that someone would be disappointed. It is equally obvious that Members of Parliament, such as myself, with substantial constituency interests in the shipbuilding industry, will fight hard to ensure that there is fair play in these matters.
I want to raise two issues in that context, the first relating to lead yard status, and the second to the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel order. It is possible, although I do not think it is intended by the Government, that current

Ministry of Defence procurement policies could effectively prevent follow-on builders from bidding successfully against the first of class lead shipbuilder.
The lead shipbuilder holds a monopoly over the supply of information relating to the follow-on ship. If that monopoly position is not adequately controlled by the Ministry of Defence, it can be exploited effectively to drive follow-on yards out of the market, resulting in lead builders having a monopoly on construction as well.
What is being done to ensure that follow-on yards can compete on a fair and equitable basis with the lead builder? That is particularly important because, in the case of the type 23 frigate, the single role minehunter and all submarines, the lead builder has won the first of class contracts with no competition at all. All that will make complete nonsense of the principle of second source bidding which is already so much a feature of the Pentagon's procurement policy and which is the direction in which the Government claim to be moving.
The other point that I want to make is about fair play. The whole of Tyneside feels cheated over the placement of the AOR at Harland and Wolff. Those who believe that there has been foul play—time, of course, will tell—will find further evidence in something that I discovered this weekend.
Reading the second report of the Select Committee on Defence as a background document for this debate, I picked up the evidence to the Committee given by Mr. Levene, whose role in defence procurement is, of course, substantial. Mr. Levene has seriously misled the Committee over the AOR 2. In the course of so doing he has raised an important new doubt over the placement of the AOR 1. I find it hard to understand how that misleading of the Committee could have been accidental.
On 15 May at question 402 of the Select Committee's report, Mr. Levene, when questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who is present today, said:
As I understand it, Chairman — because this is an answer to questions when the Secretary of State made the announcement — Swans can make a bid for the second AOR and have 'a preferential position', but they have to meet *** million?
The asterisk means that the figure is stated, but not printed. Mr. Levene confirmed:"*** million." That is, he gave a definite figure to the Select Committee.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert), to make sure that the position was clear and could not be open to any misunderstanding, asked:
Do they know what they have to meet?
Mr. Levene said "Yes." The truthful answer would have been no. It is as straightforward as that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East went on to ask:
What was their reaction on that?
Mr. Levene replied:
They are still considering it.
That is completely untrue. Swan Hunter has nothing to consider. Yet Mr. Levene left the Select Committee with the impression that Swan Hunter was considering its response to a definite price. I was assured by the managing director of Swan Hunter, when I put the point to him over the weekend, that that is not the case at all. There is nothing to consider.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West at question 404, asked:
They have the advantage now that they did not have before, of knowing an exact price they have to meet, and being able to acquire, I think, either through Harlands or through


Yarrows, the design capability or the design drawings—may be not the detailed design drawings, but certainly the major design drawings?
Mr. Levene said, "That is quite right." An honest answer to that question would have been, "That is wholly wrong." It is not a fact that Swan Hunter has the advantage of knowing the exact price to meet. It does not have that knowledge. Swan Hunter does not have the major designs for the AOR 1, and it certainly does not have the detailed designs that a shipbuilder would need to make a costed bid.
That is a serious misleading of the Select Committee. It goes to the heart of Swan Hunter's ability to compete for the AOR 2 and in turn goes to the very heart of Swan Hunter surving at all. I, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown), who is present today, know what effect that would have on employment in Tyneside.
Serious questions are raised. Where are the drawings? I am talking not about the detailed design drawings, but the major design drawings. Why are they not available to Swan Hunter, as Mr. Levene says, quite wrongly, that they are? That leads one to ask: are they not ready? One is entitled to ask: who has seen them? How could Ministers tell the house, and, incidentally, let the Prime Minister say from the Dispatch Box, that Harland and Wolff's design was preferred if that design was not even ready? Even more serious is the doubt that all this places over Harland and Wolff's bid for the AOR 1, a bid that was only marginally below Swan Hunter's. Without finished designs that bid could not have been properly costed, only priced.
Is the wretched truth about this matter that Harland and Wolff, with the connivance of the Northern Ireland Office, has taken a gamble on the lead vessel — a dangerous gamble that will do no good for Northern Ireland or the Royal Navy, and which has, of course, already led to major redundancies on Tyneside? How could the Government let that happen, and why?
The issue will not go away. The AOR placement may yet turn out to be a bigger scandal than the Westland affair.

Mr. Churchill: I share the real concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) about the application of section 10, especially in peacetime. Section 10 unfairly discriminates against service employees of the Government in a way that would not apply to civilian employees. It is inappropriate that that should be used in peacetime to deny service personnel, or their dependants in the case of fatalities, the benefits and remuneration to which they would be entitled were they civilians.
The Government have a proud record in defence, with a 20 per cent. increase in defence expenditure in real terms to their credit. By shifting the balance even more in favour of defence equipment, they are getting as much as they possibly could out of existing defence resources. It is only fair to point out that under the Government—although one would not know it from the statements made by Labour Members—health, social security and education have all done significantly better than defence. But we must view with anxiety the decision to cut defence expenditure by 4·5 per cent. during the next three years. That is being done, as the Secretary of State conceded, not in response to any slackening of the pace of the Soviet

military build-up, which continues to outbuild Britain's entire order of battle in terms of Navy, Army, Air Force and strategic weapons by four times each year, but rather in consequence of Treasury pressure. That inevitably means cuts in the defence equipment programme at a time when industry and the economy badly need such orders.
The Royal Navy's frigate programme has already slipped badly. The Royal Air Force's Tornado GRI reconnaissance programme has now slipped to the right, and part of the Harrier GR5 order has been lost. The Army's LAW mine programme has been shelved and war stocks, while inevitably clouded in a smokescreen of mystery, are clearly being run down. Those are serious matters which will lead to greater pressure for the scrapping of the Trident missile. Trident remains the most potent and cost-effective system of Polaris replacement available. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) knows that, although for professional reasons, as a party leader, he cannot be caught publicly jumping into the Prime Minister's clothes. He knows that the European missile which he proposes will be more expensive and less effective, with an unacceptable time scale.
The resources that are earmarked for the procurement of Trident could provide approximately one armoured division in addition to the four that we have in Germany. In the face of more than 200 Soviet divisions, that is hardly likely to be a factor calculated to have a deterrent effect on the Soviet Union, by comparison with Trident whose potency would be enormous. Even its opponents are prepared to concede that.
I have a high regard for the United States Administration and the remarkable steps that they have taken in recent years to strengthen the Western defence. But talk of scrapping SALT 2 is a grave mistake if the United States still has serious hopes of achieving a strategic arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union during the coming months. By all means let us spell out clearly the ways in which the Soviets have undoubtedly cheated on some of the arms control agreements, including deploying two new strategic systems when the treaty provides for only one. Let us stick to those agreements until it is clear whether we can achieve a more effective agreement in the present round of negotiations.
Another threat to arms control and to peace comes neither from Mr. Gorbachev nor from Mr. Reagan, but from an unexpected source—the British Labour party. That is why the leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), has sought to engage the Reagan Administration in what would appear to be a conspiracy of silence. The right hon. Gentleman has sought an undertaking that the lips of United Slates spokesmen will be sealed on the consequences for the future of NATO if Labour's defence policies were implemented. Why is the right hon. Gentleman so unaccustomedly modest about that aspect of Labour policies? What does he have to hide'?
The Leader of the Labour party knows full well that his party's anti-defence and anti-nuclear policies are not only the ones most calculated to appease the Labour Left wing, but most likely to deliver to Moscow the prize for which it has relentlessly striven over the years—the break-up of the NATO Alliance. Nothing is more certain to cause the break-up of NATO than the election of a Labour Government committed not only to abandon the British


deterrent but to boot the Americans out of their nuclear bases in Britain. Labour's defence policies trample into the dust the bipartisan basis of British defence policy.

Mr. Tony Banks: About time, too.

Mr. Churchill: That has guided the two main parties in Britain during the past 40 years, and Labour Governments have patriotically upheld it. It places the British Labour party—no doubt the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will cheer this — to the left of the Italian and French Communist parties, which respectively support NATO and the nuclear deterrent.
Does the Leader of the Opposition seriously believe that he could dictate to our United States ally with what weapons it is to be allowed the privilege of defending Britain, yet count on it remaining? If he does, he is making a major error of judgment. I suspect that he knows the truth and that he has been told that the present or any future American Administration faced with such a diktat would be most likely to withdraw not only from Britain but from Europe. Anyone who doubts that need only examine the reaction of the British and United States Governments faced with the attempt of the Socialist Government in New Zealand to dictate what categories of warship should be allowed to visit that country. Our categorical answer has been to break off all intended visits by Royal Navy or United States vessels to New Zealand.
I give the right hon. Gentleman credit for being no one's fool. He knows that there is every danger that that would be the American reaction. Is that not why he is so desperate to obtain American vows of secrecy on that subject? He knows that if it became public knowledge that a Labour victory would mean US withdrawal and a consequent end to NATO, which has been the foundation and cornerstone of 40 years of peace in Europe, the British electorate would give him short shrift and he could wave goodbye to any prospect of getting to No. 10.
I urge the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Labour party to consider the possibility that on the issue of British nuclear deterrence and United States bases in the United Kingdom, he may be mistaken and that the Governments of Attlee, Wilson and Callaghan were right. It is not too late for Labour to rethink its policy and to come up with a defence policy that will underpin, rather than undermine, peace.

Mr Lewis Carter-Jones: I shall commence with a quotation that explains part of the dilemma that we face in the debate. It is the foreward written by the Secretary of State for Defence to the booklet that we have all been sent. It states:
Within NATO, the United Kingdom's contribution is unique. We are the only country both to contribute strategic nuclear, threatre nuclear and conventional forces to the Alliance and to commit forces to each of the three major NATO Commands.
When one has said that, one has explained the reason for the cuts. We are trying to spread the jam far too thinly.
So far, no one has said anything against frigates and no one has said anything against fighter aircraft. There is almost unanimity in the House on that, although we have not quite agreed on the definition of 50 frigates. We have

heard the words "about 50", "maybe" and "could be", but no firm figure. In my day, five times 10 was 50. I am afraid that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, who is no longer in his place, had some difficulty in agreeing that figure.
I am delighted that we have made progress with the European fighter aircraft. I have no interest to declare either in the aircraft industry or in building frigates. We do not build them in Eccles. However, I share a canal with the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill).
We have made decisions on the fighter aircraft, but we have done so rather late. This is a theme that I have hammered over the years in the House. In the 1940s we had Spitfires and Hurricanes, but the trouble was we did not have enough of them. My own aircraft, the Mosquito, was coming along quite nicely at the time. With reference to the decision on the new fighter aircraft, we are talking about a date round about 1995. However, I have no doubt that the House and the country will accept that the country needs fighter aircraft and frigates.
Everyone has paid tribute to the Tornado. No doubt it is a superb aircraft, but if we are to have the aircraft in sufficient numbers, we must look very carefully at orders from Saudi Arabia and Oman for this aircraft. We have the prize problem of reconciling the balance of payments with supplying an excellent aircraft to the Royal Air Force.
The Ministry has a great reputation for being dilatory —I would almost go so far as to say indolent—with regard to the Lysander. I said "Lysander", because I was going to refer to Westland. In my old days, Westland built the Lysander. I did not realise that Westland built helicopters until I came to the House. However, decisions have not been made with regard to helicopters, which could be a disaster for the British helicopter industry and could put an extremely good Rolls-Royce component engine, the RTM 322, at risk. The Minister should pay close attention to that.
When a decision is finalised on an engine for the European fighter, we should take into account the fact that an aircraft has three elements — the airframe, avionics and the power plant. We are quite capable of building the power plant in this country, and Rolls-Royce must certainly have a part to play. I am concerned with preserving British technology and British jobs. The ordering programme is important in maintaining British technology at top level and in preserving British technology in this country.
I am worried about the SDI programme. It seems attractive, and it seems to offer employment prospects, but what worries me is that the Americans will pick up that at which we are best.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Absolutely.

Mr. Carter-Jones: They will pick up that at which we are superb. They will seem to pay an attractive price, but if what they are buying is intelligence and knowledge, it may turn out that they have bought it very cheaply.
In 1944, towards the end of the war, I was using what was probably the most advanced airborne avionics in the world at that time — the mark 10 air interceptor equipment. We had a tremendous lead at that time, but somehow or other that lead was lost and that know-how went to another country. We should try, to the best of our ability, to preserve leads in that field.
The Minister should not be too worried about the fact that the Americans refer to the financing of the airbus and say that they do not do things like that. Last month, in the presence of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), I saw the new engine for the Boeing 7J7, which is to be a prop jet, fitted to a Boeing 727, starboard side. This is the new generation engine. The letters NASA, in big print, spell National Aeronautics and Space Administration to me. No one will convince me that NASA is an example of private enterprise. It is not. If there is ever a chance to put defence money into British research, the Minister should do so willingly and openly.
The horizontal take-off and landing launcher —HOTOL —is supposed eventually to take us to Australia in 45 minutes. I cannot think of anyone who would wish to get there that quickly.

Mr. Tony Banks: Rupert Murdoch?

Mr. Carter-Jones: No, Mr. Murdoch now lives in America. I do not think that it is designed to fly to America yet.
HOTOL has a use because of its low-level orbit, which might make it suitable for searching and scanning the sky. Logically, that brings me to the plea advanced by the leader of the SDP. For reasons that I can understand, he was not in agreement with the spokesman for the Liberal party. Last night the right hon. Gentleman pushed the concept of the cruise missile. There is no doubt that with low-level fast approach work one can often avoid the radar of the opposing country. Ground returns were always a problem for radar from 1940 onwards. The right hon. Gentleman talked in terms of cruise becoming supersonic. Let us remember the troubles associated with Nimrod, GEC and the early warning system. I am trying to think of the avionic complications of keeping cruise at supersonic speeds at about 50 ft above the ground. To use an old cliché, cruise is a "shoot yourself in the foot" weapon. It is an own-goal weapon. If own-goal weapons have nuclear warheads, they can be devastating not only to enemies, but to one's friends and indeed to oneself. In my view, cruise is a non-starter.
I hope the Minister will acknowledge that the country is prepared to accept frigates, fighters and the conventional weapons that we need. In the other place, Lord Hill-Norton said:
First, I congratulate the Ministers, the editors and the authors on an extremely well-presented, well-written and generally informative document.
The noble Lord qualified his praise. He said "generally".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for another two sentences.
It has been criticised in some knowledgeable quarters as being a bit glib, and so I suppose it is in the sense that most of the really difficult problems before the Government in the defence ministry are glossed over a bit easily".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 June 1986, Vol. 477, c. 302.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to reproach the hon. Gentleman on another count as well. He is out of order in quoting from the record of the other place other than from a Minister in the current Session.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Julian Critchley: Yesterday, we listened to a remarkable speech from the Secretary of State. It was all about money and the theme of the speech was that the party was over. Since 1979, the Government have spent one third more in real terms on defence, but certain decisions have been taken which add up to the end of this particular party.
The 3 per cent. increase in real terms is to be no more and, more important, it appears that over the next three years we shall be £800 million short in the defence budget. What are the implications of so remarkable and frank announcement by the Secretary of State? Clearly, between now and the general election, the Secretary of State must postpone much, cancel a little, shuffle his cards where necessary, and go in for fudge. The only pleasure that he might derive in the next 18 months is that he may have a little fun at the expense of the Opposition parties.
What then is the choice that faces the simple elector when it comes to defence? It appears that the Labour party will abandon our nuclear weapons but stay within NATO. It will do so, despite the growth of American nationalism and the growth on this side of the Atlantic of anti-Americanism. It is arguable that by ridding ourselves of our nuclear weapons, at least Britain and Europe would become more dependent than ever before on the strategic nuclear guarantee of the United States.
A further factor relates to the United States air force bases in the United Kingdom. They and their nuclear weapons are to be given notice to quit. Presumably, that would be a matter for negotiation, but it could not fail to aggravate to some extent Anglo-American relations and, at the same time, put a big question mark over NATO strategy which as every defence expert knows, still depends on the first use of allied nuclear weapons against a Soviet conventional strike. For the Labour party to appear to be anti-American and to move the country into an ex-nuclear status would perhaps achieve the worst of both worlds.
The SDP-Liberal alliance speaks not with one voice but with two. Clearly, the SDP wants a successor system to Polaris and the Libs want out of the nuclear business. So my simple elector will presumably go to the two conferences at Harrogate and Eastbourne in September this year in search of a compromise of sorts. But a compromise between virginity and virility is hard to achieve. On balance, I suspect that the elector will be disappointed. It could be that the SDP would keep the rockets while the Liberals would fill the warheads with muesli.
Before the chairman of our great party rushes into print to rubbish his enemies, let him beware. What do we offer? The same package as before? More conventional weapons? A larger nuclear capability in the Trident programme? The truth is that were we to be re-elected, we could not afford to purchase a three-piece suit of such quality. We would have to cut our cloth. Is there anybody who can deny that the first duty of the new Conservative Secretary of State, given our re-election, is to set in course the most fundamental of fundamental defence reviews?
What would have to give under the circumstances? Would it be the Trident programme? I suspect that we would be too far down the road to make any appreciable savings under those circumstances. Would the argument so beloved by editors of The Times, that the Rhine Array be withdrawn and brought back to Aldershot to save


money, become more attractive in 18 months' time? Would the Royal Air Force be further reduced in number and a question mark placed over the European fighter aircraft? Or does the next Conservative Government look to the spirit of Sir John Nott to shrink the surface fleet? This is where we all came in in 1982.
We must expect no help from the Soviet Union because I think that we shall enter into a long period of calm and tranquillity in foreign affairs. We all have our ideas about what should happen eventually when we have a fundamental defence review because the implications for defence and foreign policy are remarkably important. But we shall not find out until 365 days after polling day.
In conclusion, the Labour party would save some money at the expense of the NATO Alliance. The SDP-Liberal alliance has not yet got its act together. We in the Conservative party will discuss all aspects of defence between now and the general election except for the aspects of defence that really matter. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Mr. Dick Douglas: It is always interesting to hear the analysis of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), who is an interesting commentator. I suspect that not only he but others have been rehearsing the speeches that they make during the general election campaign. I hope I shall be forgiven for turning to a matter which the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) suggested was amiss, a local issue which affects my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)—the Rosyth dockyard.
I shall not follow the Minister in talking about the contractual relationships which may be pursued at present with those who may be bidding for the Rosyth and or Devonport dockyards. What details of information are likely to be forthcoming to my constituents, who are worried about the proposed development of the Rosyth base to facilitate the twin dock for nuclear submarines in the not-too-distant future? My constituents, especially those at Limekilns and Rosyth, need reassurances because they are likely to be faced with two nuclear-powered submarines of a different type and of a different dimension in terms of pressurised water reactor. They need specific assurances about the safety precautions that are likely to be taken should something go amiss with those boats.
The Secretary of State said that he would be fairly forthcoming to my constituents, and they have already had some meetings in the area. I hope that I can press the Minister to be even more forthcoming. While I accept that it is unlikely that the development of nuclear refitting facilities can take place anywhere other than at the Rosyth dockyard, my constituents need their fears allayed.
One aspect of the Dockyard Services Bill causes me anxiety. We should be able to assure many of the young people who are serving their apprenticeship in the dockyard that they should be able to complete their apprenticeship without fear of dismissal when it is completed. I press the Minister on that point, because it is extremely unfair to cry out for additional skills in Scotland and elsewhere, and simultaneously see those skills eroded and put on the scrap heap at the end of the apprenticeship period.
We have heard a lot of talk about frigates and frigate orders. The revelations by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) must be answered, and I hope I have the Minister's attention about this. They are revelations in relation to the searching questions that I put during the examination of Mr. Levene, who was not evasive. He gave answers that seem to be contradicted by the views put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East.
The House would appreciate some answers about the ordering of frigates. Many hon. Members have put that point and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) pressed his Government to take a decision. The orders are likely to be announced within a few weeks and I hope that they will be announced in the House and not as part of a written answer, so that we can question the background and the views put to the Minister. We cannot get information about the numbers, far less about the yards that are likely to receive these orders.
In his speech yesterday the Secretary of State used a phrase which suggested that his defence policy ought to be one of stability and continuity. That is not the case in terms of Secretaries of State because we have seen the managerial man, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) succeeded by the perjink politician, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). He is a subtle and smooth politician and is likely to evade the decisions that the hon. Member for Aldershot pressed him to consider, albeit in the future.
I do not agree with the view that we should consider all four options. Something has to go, and if the Government were wise they would get rid of Trident. I put the following point to hon. Members who might challenge me on that. I cannot conceive of any situation in which British so-called independent nuclear deterrent, which is presently Polaris, or the French so-called independent nuclear deterrent could be used without the support and the agreement of the Americans. These deterrents add nothing to the NATO Alliance.
In the Defence Estimates there are some sleights of hand about making the necessary savings. In the Estimates, the Secretary of State looks at European collaboration, which of course is attractive until one examines it in detail. We admire the work undertaken by the right hon. Member for Henley in upgrading the growth of the independent European programme. But if we examine the shining light of European collaboration, the Tornado, it will be seen that it was a costly project and did not necessarily bring outstanding benefits in cost savings to the United Kingdom. That is not the way out. Modern defence equipment is capital intensive and extremely costly, especially in research and development.
Finally, I should like to turn to the important matter of the strategic defence initiative. The Defence Estimates show a high proportion of expenditure on research and development. I have consistently argued that that is too high a proportion of our total research and development programme locked up in defence.
In the Select Committee we examined the Government Chief Scientist. He clearly indicated that the Americans are not interested in us because they love our bonnie blue or brown eyes, but that they are interested in the high quality of our research and development, and especially that which has been undertaken by many of our scientific institutions. The Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) was


quite right when he said that, if we did not collaborate, much of our intellectual manpower, if I can put it that way, could easily be bid away. That is a distortion of our effort that damages our industrial base. We ought not to be sanguine about the way in which the Americans have trawled our research institutions and universities in order to bribe people away for the strategic defence initiative which, however one describes it, is extremely dubious in terms of total defence.
President Reagan in a speech in March 1983 took a certain view about how he could overcome difficulties that faced him about defending the United States. We ought to be careful about this type of collaboration. This is an interesting debate, and in his reply the Minister of State should give us certain assurances about naval orders that are important for the people of Scotland and especially for the people of Clydeside.

Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn): Within the next two or three years there will have to be a major re-examination of the size of Britain's military commitments. Some short-term economies and the momentum built up over the last six years of spending growth may mean that awkward decisions can be postponed, but shortly we shall have to consider the priority attached to each commitment and decide whether the United Kingdom can continue to afford them all.
Personnel costs, if anything, are likely to rise. Consequently, it is the equipment budget that is likely to suffer the biggest reductions in funding and on one view this will fall by around 10 per cent. in real terms by 1988–89. Those who feel that a cancellation of Trident would provide the answer and ease the pressure on conventional weapons expenditure, need to be disabused. Certainly, if a Conservative Government cancelled Trident no doubt the saving would remain within the defence budget, although we would have lost one of the most significant elements in deterrence — namely, a second centre of decision making in Europe with a credible nuclear deterrent.
Although all the major Opposition parties are united in a commitment to abandon Trident, an SDP-dominated Government would have to use most, if not all, the savings from Trident in order to pay for an alternative replacement for Polaris, and it has become quite clear that a Labour or Liberal-dominated Government would channel any savings into other areas of Government expenditure and not into defence equipment. As it is unlikely that a Conservative Government will cancel Trident, the squeeze is on defence equipment, whether Trident is cancelled in the future or not.
We should remember that the United Kingdom wins wars because of the spirit and efficiency of British service personnel. We in Parliament have a duty to provide them with the best reasonably obtainable equipment. Financial consideration may mean that such equipment has to be increasingly multi-purpose rather than dedicated to specific tasks unless we are to curtail dramatically the various theatres in which we expect our service men to operate. That is why the Prime Minister is to be congratulated on looking again at the Royal Navy's decision for the new frigate. I appreciate that the type 23 was designed specifically to carry out highly specialised anti-submarine warfare in the eastern Atlantic. There could be no better ship than the type 23 for this purpose,

but if a more general purpose vessel were to be considered, then the S90, the short fat hull, should merit greater attention. The S90 is cheaper and has greater natural stability than the long slim hull of the type 23 as well as providing a better weapons platform and a larger radar horizon.
The marine technology board of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council conducted trials of the two types and concluded that the S90 design failed to reach Ministry of Defence standards. It is uncertain by how much the standards were not reached and whether such shortcomings could be remedied fairly easily. If we are to maintain an adequate size of surface fleet at a cheaper cost then a multipurpose S90 frigate may well be the next generation that we should be looking towards after the type 23. We should build a prototype S90 so that it can be properly evaluated.
The greatest flexibility that we have and the element which we should ensure remains both credible and able to operate in a variety of different situations is our amphibious force. It is the only fully flexible aggressive force that we have that can be deployed out of, as well as within, the NATO area. It has the freedom to advance, withdraw, concentrate or disperse without violating frontiers or abandoning ground.
There are many circumstances in which such forces could be necessary other than in wartime. Top of the list comes the rescue or evacuation of one's own friendly nationals from a threat in a foreign country. I can attest to the efficiency of our amphibious forces in achieving that objective, having just come from serving on a large NATO naval exercise off the north coast of Scotland, which is continuing without my presence, in which that was practised. Secondly, there may be an invitation from a country with which a treaty commitment or similar agreement exists, such as Belize. There is the need to maintain freedom of passage through international waters when such freedom is threatened. Thirdly, there may be a threat to the security of access to vital raw materials.
The principal role of our amphibious forces within NATO will remain the defence of the northern flank. Equipment and capabilities must be provided with that in mind. That is against a background of the Soviet Union's growing use of amphibious forces which, by the 1990s, may be able to land in divisional strength to seize airfields in north Norway and perhaps in corps strength on the Baltic coasts with some 400 close air support aircraft.
Our amphibious forces must not only be well protected in their passage to Norway with ships that are properly designed for damage control but continue to have the ability to insert and withdraw forces by sea which the terrain of northern Norway makes impossible by land. We could expect the five air heads in northern Norway to be rendered inoperative by enemy action. In any event, an airlift would be impracticable as it would require 500 C130 Hercules loads and extend over several days with heavy equipment having to follow by sea. Only an amphibious force properly equipped and with dedicated transport can maintain complete independence and flexibility of operation.
To fulfil those many tasks, the decision must be taken now to replace or renovate Fearless and Intrepid, as well as the landing ships logistic, which will come to the end of their useful life in the mid-1990s. There is unanimity among service chiefs about the need for that. I know that matters are well advanced, but I hope that the two


replacements will maintain the same credibility by having extensive damage control facility and the doubling up of systems to ensure their survivability. I hope that Fearless and Intrepid will not necessarily be mothballed, but, taking a leaf out of the book of practice of the United States and the Soviet Union, will be renovated and their lives extended as far as practicably possible within existing hulls.
Beyond that, the most pressing need is a lift capability. Since the demise of the Commando ship, such as Bulwark, on which I had the privilege to serve, we have no dedicated large deck for multi-slot helicopter operations. On Bulwark in 1976 in the West Indies I was able to observe a Commando embarked for three months with a helicopter squadron with the ability to lift the whole Commando and its supporting arms to a deployment within two hours.
We need to carry at least two thirds of the amphibious forces in specialised ships which should also be able to transport and operate the helicopters and landing craft needed for ship-to-ship movement and subsequent resupply. We cannot afford the expensive and dangerous practice of cross-decking troops, equipment and vehicles to match them to the means of getting them ashore. There are obvious advantages in the force being able to deploy to the objective area already grouped together so that training, briefing and rehearsals can be conducted together.
In the view of Lieutenant-General Sir Steuart Pringle, the lesson of the Falklands was not that commercial ships can do the task but that without a corps of specialist ships, it could not have been embarked upon. We should have sufficient helicopters on specialised Commando shipping to be able to launch a simultaneous lift of two company groups—some 300 men with their associated equipment and support weapons — which means 24 Sea King equivalents. To deliver that number of aircraft simultaneously, a total of at least 12 operating spots is needed. For our amphibious forces to retain credibility and the ability to fulfil their multi-purpose role, we must ensure that we have at least one Commando carrier with the requisite number of helicopters.
It is reported that senior Royal Navy and Royal Marine staff officers have pressed for converted transports called aviation support ships since 1984. We now have no Commando carrier. I understand that the Government are giving serious thought to appointing British Aerospace Ship Systems as the prime contractor for conversion of the ro-ro merchant ship Contender Argent into a Hermes replacement for £100 million.
It is reported that Mr. John Thornton, the sales manager, told a conference that his company had completed a study for a more comprehensive conversion which would make it even more capable than the carrier Invincible with at least 12 Sea Harriers and the facilities to support 12 helicopters, six operating simultaneously, as well as a complete Commando as embarked force.
Those ships would have to be protected adequately. Understandably, there is genuine doubt about the ability of converted merchant vessels to withstand battle damage, as was demonstrated by the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor in the Falklands. We cannot afford to give our amphibious forces second best. They will bear the brunt of any conflict outside general war, as has been demonstrated by the only conflict in which this country has been involved in my

memory. Such a programme should cost no more than £600 million. It is a small price to pay for what was described by Liddell Hart:
amphibious flexibility is the greatest strategic asset that a sea-based power possesses. It creates a distraction to a continental enemy's concentration that is most advantageously disproportionate to the resources employed.
For our future security, the Government must take the correct decision. Many people will scrutinise it most carefully.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Any organisation that is accused of racial discrimination tends to answer by saying, "We do not discriminate. We treat all people equally." When that organisation is then asked for the evidence that it does not discriminate, the organisation tends to say, "We do not need to monitor or collect evidence because it is our policy not to discriminate." That is precisely how the armed services, especially the Army, have responded to the well-documented evidence that racial discrimination takes place in the British Army. That discrimination takes place in recruitment and promotion for those who join.
In inner-city areas, both in north America and now in Britain, joining the Army has been the way in which disadvantaged young men and women, especially men, from ethnic minorities have found their way to getting jobs, further training and opportunities. If the Army does not provide equality of opportunity for people in that position, the Army is that much the poorer for it. Indeed, the country must be concerned that one important area of job opportunity directly under public control discriminates in a society where discrimination should not take place.
The discrimination varies from regiment to regiment. Some regiments appear not to take any black or Asian people at all. Other regiments appear to set quotas to keep numbers down. Other regiments have an open-door policy and attract young men of Afro-Caribbean or Asian origin. For some time, perhaps not today, the physical training corps did not take black people. For some time, perhaps not today, the military police did not take black people.
More importantly—it is still true—it is the regiments concerned with ceremonial duties which seem to have set their backs on having black people among their numbers. One only had to watch the Trooping of the Colour to see that not a single black face was present. The discrimination appears to apply to the Guards Regiment, the Life Guards and the Household Cavalry —ceremonial regiments which deal especially with duties outside Buckingham Palace and elsewhere when the royal family are present. That is of double concern because the Queen is head of a multiracial Commonwealth. It has been reported that the Prince of Wales expressed concern about the events and the features which I have described.
The Army says, "There is a traditional policy of recruitment. We tend to take people whose fathers served in regiments." That is bound to be disciminatory. In any area of employment in a society which is as multiracial as Britain's, the policy of giving people job opportunities only because their fathers had jobs there is bound to be discriminatory.
I do not refer just to recruitment. I refer also to the conditions within certain regiments and the opportunities for promotion. Life in the Army is tough. Nobody denies that. The Army is not for squeamish people. New recruits


suffer abuse. They suffer what I would call a certain amount of aggro. I am satisfied — I have spoken to black people who have served in the Army—that, over and beyond the normal toughness and rugged approach, especially towards new recruits, life is much tougher for black people in the Army than for white people. It is unnecessarily harsh because they suffer racial abuse and sometimes physical violence.
It is clear that the chances of promotion for black people are significantly less than for white people. The other day, in the Palace of Westminster I met one of my constituents who had served for 12 years in the Army. He had tried to become a lance-corporal. He reached that stage but then, as he said, he was "busted". He is a man of great intelligence, skill and aptitude and I am certain from what he said that he was a good—indeed, a first-class — soldier. Nevertheless, he got nowhere. It may interest the House to know that he has set up his own business and is now the managing director of a successful company. The Army thought that he was not good enough even to have one stripe.
There are a couple of black colonels in the Army—in, I believe, the medical corps and dental corps respectively—but how many black officers are there in the ordinary Army regiments? Perhaps one, perhaps none. Yes, at Sandhurst many black people are officer cadets, but they are all receiving training for the services in overseas countries, not for the British Army.
It need not be like that. I am not saying that everything about the American army is wonderful. I am old enough to remember when the American army came to this country in 1942. It had all-black regiments with white officers, and the only black officers were padres. The American army has changed. Recently, I saw a book on the future for black people in the American army which contained pages of photographs of one, two, three and four-star generals. I am told that at a recent gathering in New York there were 76 black generals and admirals. The American army has demonstrated that, without discriminating, it can still be effective. I criticise it in other respects but in this there are lessons to be learned from it.
This issue is a challenge. We cannot allow this discrimination to continue. It is bad for the Army and for the country. We need a clear statement of policy from the Minister that discrimination should not take place in the Army, in terms of recruitment or promotion, and that it should not take place in any regiment or any aspect of the British armed services. The Government's policy must be that discrimination should not and will not take place.
The Government should at last start monitoring—this has been under consideration for some time —applications for jobs and promotions in the armed services to ascertain whether racial discrimination, which should be done away with, continues to take place. Unless we monitor this process, and know exactly what is happening, there is still the possibility that discrimination will take place somewhere along the line. If the Army is all-white, most, if not all, promotion decisions will be made by white men. There is always a tendency, even if one does not discriminate deliberately, to select for jobs people in one's own image. In a country in which most decent jobs are decided by white interviewers, it is not surprising that most of the best jobs go to white men. The Army must be careful. Monitoring is one sanction which must apply.
It is necessary to give better advice to recruiting officers. Of course, young black men whose families have no

tradition of service in the British Army will not know how best to apply and to proceed with an army career. It is up to the recruiting officers to give better advice and encouragement to those who apply.
If we do not get rid of discrimination in the armed forces, young black men will no longer apply to join. The Army will be the worse for that and it will block yet another avenue of job opportunity and career development for black people in our inner cities. Heaven knows, there are too few such avenues open to them. It is vital that, in a country which is supposed to believe that racial discrimination does not take place, we demonstrate in the very service that is under public control that such discrimination does not exist. This is a challenge to the Government, and I hope that they rise to it.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: I must be brief, and I therefore apologise to those hon. Members who have made interesting points if I cannot take them up, but I want to deal with a problem of vital interest to many of my constituents who work at the royal ordnance factory at Barnbow in building the Challenger tank.
Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Slate spoke about the orders placed last year for Challenger and about the increase in competition in procurement generally. I want to put both statements in the context of my right hon. Friend's statement two weeks ago on the review of the privatisation of Royal Ordnance plc and his withholding of the further order for the 7th Regiment: of Challenger tanks from R0F Barnbow.
I am an enthusiast for the privatisation of industrial operations. There are many reasons, but the main one is that those companies do better in the private sector for all concerned with them. The spectacular success record of those companies which have been privatised speaks for itself. The privatisation which has been achieved so far has involved either employee buy-outs or flotation, with employees taking up shares in their own companies. That is a vital ingredient in success.
Royal Ordnance plc had my full support during the passage of the enabling Bill, primarily because of the assurances by the then Secretary of State that privatisation would be by way of flotation of the group as a whole. In my view, and in the view of those who are familiar with Royal Ordnance plc, that group will be well suited to prosper in the private sector, because it is a strong, integrated group with many unique skills and resources.
Royal Ordnance plc went well down the route to flotation, when there was a public intervention by Vickers in the order for the 7th Regiment of Challenger. I do not blame Vickers for doing what would come naturally to anyone in competition, but the action of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in appearing to respond to that intervention by withholding the order that he was about to place and by announcing a review of future arrangements for the flotation of Royal Ordnance plc has caused widespread concern, especially in Leeds.
I fully accept that it may be that the timetable for flotation is too tight. Many uniquely complicated factors are involved in the flotation and it is important that they are put right before the company is placed on the market. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will soon announce a new timetable for the flotation as planned in form and content, I shall have no complaint. However, I shall point to the several years of indecision and doubt


which the employees have faced as a good example of why they would he better off in the private sector than under public control. But if the rumours of a planned break-up of the royal ordnance factories and the sale of ROF Barnbow to Vickers proves to be justified, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have a fight on his hands.
In my view and, I believe, that of many, asset stripping is not an acceptable form of privatisation. The only basis on which Vickers would be interested in Barnbow would be in closing it down, removing its specialist plant and tooling and finishing off its only United Kingdom competitor for tanks. That would not increase the competition to which my right hon. Friend so proudly refers in the White Paper. The sale of Barnbow to Vickers wold be contrary to any sensible competition policy. Indeed, it would go much further than that, because it would cast a blight on the Government's good intentions on future privatisation proposals.
Royal Ordnance plc is a well-integrated group with much cross-supplying between its component companies. Almost all the companies in the group contribute to Challenger or to its ammunition and spares. It is the total package that is critical in the commercial context. The carve-up of Barnbow would only foreshadow the break-up of the group as whole and I for one would fight that every inch of the way.
This leads me to the order for the 7th Regiment, which is vital to Barnbow's survival. As I understand it, the pen of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was hovering over the paper of the contract for signature when he drew back. We need to know whether the order is being cut or postponed, and whether it will be placed in the near future. If it is to be placed, it should be borne in mind that Barnbow is already tooled up, has already made some 300 Challenger tanks and has wide experience in manufacturing them, whereas Vickers is neither tooled up nor has any experience in making them.
Vickers is still in the tank business today only because of the injection of regional aid by the Government into the north-east. Many of us believe that it is vital that regional aid must not become a cloak for job stealing from areas which need the jobs they already have.
Given those facts, there is no way in which Vickers could undercut Barnbow for the Challenger unless it is given an edge in addition to the regional aid it has already received, such as extra funds for tooling and setting up. Where would be the saving to the Government in that? In any event, the Select Committee has shown in its report how difficult it is to quantify savings from competition, especially with complex products with long lead times.
Why the hesitancy in placing the order with Barnbow as was intended? The very fact of delay is costing jobs in Barnbow and is making it more difficult for the group to find orders overseas because of the fear that there will be a lack of continuity in what the group can supply. Why cause further doubts and anxieties on top of those that have been caused by the delays of the past two years? Why put at risk the future of the best tank in the world by breaking up the team that make it?
When the Bill to set up Royal Ordnance plc went through the House, the then Secretary of State gave assurances that, after examining all the facts, the group would be floated as a whole. Today, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has shown excellent judgment in

announcing the retention of the clothing and textile depot in Leeds instead of moving it, as was originally proposed, to Glasgow. I said in an intervention that the moving of jobs from one area to another made no economic sense. I am glad that the Under-Secretary showed such good judgment in that respect.
I am now asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to show similar good judgment in confirming quickly a new programme and timetable for the flotation of Royal Ordnance plc in its present form and for a quick decision on the order for the 7th Regiment of the Challenger tank.
Royal Ordnance plc as a group can be a strong and vital force in the private sector defence industry if we give it its chance, and if we give a chance to those who work in it to prove what they can do.

Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) has posed some pertinent questions about the future of the Royal Ordnance factory in which many of his constituents work and future orders for the Challenger tank.
I also immediately associate myself with the plea made by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) for the repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 in respect of non-combatant service personnel. The right hon. Gentleman raised many points and I look forward to the Minister's response to them.
The theme running through many of the speeches this evening and yesterday was the budgetary crisis which the Secretary of State faces as he tries to match a declining level of resources in real terms with our defence needs and commitments. I make no apology for returning to that theme.
The "Statement on the Defence Estimates" admits that some difficult decisions will have to be taken, which is at least some movement and a more realistic assessment of the situation than that adopted by the Secretary of State's predecessor. However, I am still not convinced that the present Secretary of State or his Ministers have fully appreciated the scale of the problem—not least, in the reduction of the non-Trident equipment budget. If they have appreciated it, they are certainly not admitting to it.
In his reply last night, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), admitted what everyone has known all along — that as a result of expenditure on Trident, which will be reaching its peak in the next few years, spending on non-Trident equipment will decrease. However, he omitted to quantify that decrease. Perhaps when the Minister replies this evening he will put some figures on that. He may also wish to comment on the accuracy of the calculations contained in a paper prepared by the Defence Information Group which, having made assumptions about spending on spares, repairs, and maintenance, estimates that spending on non-Trident new equipment will fall from £4·6 billion in 1984·85 to £3·5 billion in 1988–89. That is a reduction of 24 per cent. in real terms. If that is the scale of the cut, difficult decisions will indeed have to be made.
Last night the Minister, and this afternoon the Under-Secretary, tried to put in a plea of mitigation by assuring us that the cuts in expenditure would not really be cuts at all and that it was all a question of getting value for money. Few would dispute that there has been a strong argument over recent years that the Ministry of Defence should take tighter control over defence contracts. However, it is naive


to believe that greater efficiency in procurement, competition policy, or even joint procurement projects with our European allies, however admirable and desirable, will make up the shortfall as a result of declining defence expenditure.
IF time had permitted I would have said a few more words about competition policy. The only point I would make is that taking competition policy perhaps too far could result in a number of companies and shipyards no longer being viable, as for example was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr. Brown) when he questioned the future of the Swan Hunter yard. We might then find that no other shipyards were available to provide competition. If we reach that position, then the whole point of any competitive tendering policy could well be lost.
It has been quite obvious, not only from this debate but from many defence debates in recent months, that defence procurement policy and especially the delays in placing orders and, in some cases, the non-placing of orders, have been having grave effects on employment prospects in many parts of the country. On a number of occasions the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) has raised the issue of the royal ordnance factory in his constituency which has been manufacturing ammunition. My hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) have on many occasions expressed concern about future employment prospects at Westland because of delays in decisions on helicopter procurement. There have been cries for help from the north-east where the future of the Swan Hunter yard is critical, and we have had cries from the Clyde shipyards and those who represent Clydeside constituencies. I am sure that when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Scotland he was well aware of the need for defence orders to go to yards such as Scott Lithgow on the lower Clyde.
The social and economic consequences of a procurement policy cannot be ignored. If it is felt, understandably, that the defence budget should not be carrying the burden of what, in many respects, would be a social policy and a burden which should more appropriately be borne by the social security budget — surely our accounting systems are not so inflexible as to fail to allow for some reallocation of resources to take into account decisions which might be influenced more by social and economic
I have mentioned some of the difficult procurement decisions or non-decisions which have caused anxiety. The Select Committee, in its valuable report, in paragraph 15, states:
merely 'managing' the defence budget in the way endorsed in"—
the 1985 Estimate—
could result in a defence review by stealth.
I do not believe that it will be a defence review by stealth because stealth implies that some thought and deliberation has been given to it. I suspect that it will be a defence review by ad hockery. As each decision comes up, it will be either deferred or shelved, and in the next few years we will stumble from one crisis to another. That is why, over a number of months, my right hon. and hon. Friends have pressed for a proper defence review so that we can make a proper assessment of our commitments in relation to our resources.
We have heard again today about the latest instalment of what the future size of the frigate fleet will be. The Under-Secretary, opening the debate, said that it would be about 50. Perhaps the Minister, when he replies, will tell us when "about 50" will become "about 45." That seems to be fudge on a grand scale. I think that those ad hoc decisions are an ingredient of the most unpalatable brand of fudge served up by the present Administration.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) indicated that we identify Trident expenditure as the cuckoo in the nest — that item of expenditure which is leading to a major squeeze on other items of new defence equipment. He delivered an effective critique of the Trident programme and why it should be cancelled on the grounds of cost and escalation in our nuclear capacity. I believe that by proceeding with the Trident programme we are losing twice over. We are losing not only on the cost we must face in terms of conventional defence but also because of the stumbling block which Trident represents at a time when deep cuts are being sought in arms negotiation talks.
Let us consider, for example, the proposals put forward by Mr. Gorbachev on intermediate nuclear weapons which suggested that United States and Soviet intermediate nuclear weapons should be eliminated from Europe. Mr. Gorbachev did not ask as a condition for the scrapping of the United Kingdom or French nuclear weapon programmes, only that our forces should not be increased — in other words, that we should not escalate from Polaris to Trident. However, the Prime Minister on more than one occasion has refused to give even that commitment. That possible avenue for exploration and negotiation has been effectively blocked by the Government's obsession to keep the Trident programme alive.
I would now like to consider the progress which the alliance would like to see made towards the negotiation of a comprehensive test ban treaty. We have been told regularly by Ministers at the Dispatch Box, and it appears in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates," that the major problem in negotiating such a treaty is verification. That flies in the face of the views of an increasing number of scientists who believe that there are no longer any real technical obstacles to the negotiation of a verifiable comprehensive test ban treaty.
Last week in Nevada we saw the real reason why we have not taken any initiative over the test ban treaty. A nuclear device was exploded. No doubt that was part of the Trident programme. Again Trident is an obstacle to an initiative which we were well placed to take.
We should have responded more positively to the Gorbachev moratorium on nuclear testing. If we dismiss every overture and initiative as simple propaganda, nothing will be achieved. It is worth remembering that in the aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis it was President Kennedy who announced a unilateral moratorium on atmospheric testing. That was the first step on the way towards a partial test ban treaty. As one of the signatories to that treaty, Britain is well placed to take the initiative to have comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations started again.
Many nations which do not have nuclear weapons attach great importance to a nuclear test ban treaty. They see it as evidence of our good faith which we are obliged to show under the non-proliferation treaty. Since the debate on the Estimates last year, there has been a review


conference on the non-proliferation treaty. Exceptional disquiet was expressed by many nations over the lack of progress made in arms talks and the fact that, while they kept to their side of the bargain — there has been no proliferation and the treaty has been more successful than many people thought it would be when first signed—they still have to look to us to show good faith as we are obliged under the treaty.
I believe that not enough attention has been paid to common security, which was one of the main themes of the alliance's joint commission report. The improvement that we seek in international relations goes hand in hand with specific agreements on arms control, and there are many specific proposals to that end in our defence commission report.
I will cut my remarks short and conclude by saying that the alliance commission's proposals should be read. They contain a common thread of consistency and they will have a great appeal to the electorate when they are studied in detail before the next election.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I should like to support and underpin the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) about our visit last week to the Falkland Islands. I, too, pay tribute to the professionalism of the three arms of our services and to the integration of those three arms. I should like the Secretary of State to note the services' attitude to their mail, and also the comments on the oddities of that special pay.
Not until I was in the Falklands did the nonsense of distance strike home—not the distance from here to the Falklands, but the distance in the south Atlantic area from Argentina to Stanley, from Stanley to South Georgia, and from South Georgia to the South Sandwich Islands. I reexamined the atlas in the Library today, and it appears that the islands are almost halfway between Buenos Aires and Cape Town. The mind boggles at the comments that might come from the Opposition Benches if South Africa used the distance argument in a sovereignty debate. There is no logic in that argument. We might as well say that Cyprus is 40 miles from Turkey, but 400 miles from Greece. I know that my brother-in-law's mother is Jersey French. Distance clearly has nothing to do with the argument. The point is, we must defend what is right.
I do not share the view of those Opposition Members who have stated —I shall have to paraphrase, as I do not have the pamphlet with me—that they will negotiate away the "albatross" of the Falklands. I do not share that simplistic view. Frankly, I criticise the role played in this matter by the Commonwealth and that of the United Nations, who, above all else, should defend the right of any nation, however small its population, to have self-determination.
I should like to consider the main points of difference between the parties in this debate on defence. There is no point in defence unless that defence has the capability of matching, on its own or with a credible and secure alliance, a foreseeable threat to our country and its people. There is no point in having all the hardware unless that foreseeable threat perceives our will to use it. That was the great long-term benefit for peace that arose from the Falklands conflict.

Mr. Bob Clay: Oh, come on.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Member may scoff at this but no one can argue that he wants a defence policy unless he has the will to say that if he had to use it he would.

Mr. Tony Banks: That is what worries us.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: If that is so, the hon. Gentleman must make his decisions.
That is why a conventional army without a nuclear capability in a nuclear world would be a pointless waste of resources. However large that conventional arm, a threat from whatever source of a nuclear reaction would render our conventional arm utterly useless. The Conservative party has the only credible and believable defence policy.

Mr. Tony Banks: There is an awful sense of detachedness about defence debates in this place. I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State's opening speech yesterday. To hear someone quietly and dispassionately talking about vast resources being devoted to weapons of death and destruction was unnerving, unreal and, at times, downright obscene. It was also supremely irrelevant to the real problems of this country and the rest of the world.
We are surrounded by poverty, famine and disease in the world, yet countless billions of dollars are spent on arms in this country and elsewhere. I should like to make a quick contrast. Yesterday, the Faculty of Community Medicine—part of the Royal College of Physicians—published a report which showed that Britain now has one of the worst health records among developed countries, after being a leader a generation ago.
Britain now devotes a smaller percentage of resources to health than any other European country, with the exception of Greece. Chapter 5 of the Estimates boasts that in 1986–87 the United Kingdom will spend more on defence in absolute terms than any other European country in NATO, second only to the United States. As a percentage of national output, we spend more on defence than any other NATO country, apart from Greece. That is not a matter for self-congratulation as we hear from the Government Benches. To be statistically portrayed as a nation of disease-ridden warmongers is not an attractive image and not one which even the Prime Minister would wish to foster. That merely demonstrates how perverted the values of our country have become since 1979.
I should like to raise two specific points in my short speech, and I hope that the Minister will answer them when he replies. They echo the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). I hope the Minister read the article that appeared in The Observer on 8 June. It claimed:
The seven regiments of the Household Division. … operate an unofficial colour bar.
Apparently when it comes to Trooping the Colour one can have any colour one likes, as long as it is not black.
The Ministry of Defence has hotly denied that there is a colour bar. Of course, one would expect that. However, I hope that the Minister will call in some of the evidence. I shall quote from the article in The Observer. It says:


One serving senior Guards NCO told us: 'There are no blacks in the Guards. There have never been and never will be. People do not want to see a black face under a bearskin. Blacks are generally persuaded to go elsewhere'.
There was also a letter in the Sunday Telegraph of 22 June. A regimental medical officer said that he saw a black recruit in the Brigade of Guards and was
summoned to the CO's office to he told that he had just seen a black Grenadier on parade and what could I do about his medical discharge?
The medical officer said that he could do nothing, because the man was A1 fit. Apparently, the education officer was contacted and the black Guardsman was given an aptitude IQ test. It was discovered that the recruit was too intelligent for life as a guardsman, so he was transferred to the RASC for training in motor vehicle maintenance.
In a way, those are just anecdotes. However, given the evidence in the Observer article and the statements that have been made by my hon. Friends, I hope that the Minister will take the matter seriously. I also hope that he will ensure that an inquiry is immediately launched into the colour bar that is allegedly being operated within the Household Division. There is clearly concern among Opposition Members on this issue.
Indeed, given the degree of concern, it is strange that the Minister should refuse point blank to have ethnic monitoring. That is not good enough. If the Minister is to be credible when denying such allegations, he must be able to produce the evidence to refute them. Without ethnic monitoring, he clearly cannot do so. The Army needs a policy of equal opportunities throughout. We also need ethnic monitoring, and we must have that inquiry into the allegations of a colour bar being operated in the Household Division.
My second point relates to the activities of the military attaches from the South African embassy in London.

Mr. McNamara: I take it that my hon. Friend does not just limit the operation of the colour bar to the Household Division, as other regiments and corps are involved.

Mr. Banks: Of course I should like the inquiry to be extended, but discrimination seems to be particularly bad in the Household Division. That is where the the colour bar seems to operate most rigidly. I therefore ask the Minister to pay serious attention to the concern expressed and to ensure that an inquiry is launched.
I asked the Minister a question about the activities of the South African military attaches, and he replied:
During the past three years, South African attaches, as part of organised groups of attaches from other Foreign and Commonwealth countries, have made some 30 visits to defence establishments and attended six defence-related social or ceremonial functions."—[Official Report, 16 June 1986, Vol. 99, c. 471.]
I hope that the Minister will hold discussions with the Foreign Secretary about expelling those South African military attaches from the United Kingdom. If he is not prepared to go that far, will he at least stop inviting them to defence establishments, where they are wined and dined at the expense of British taxpayers? When considering this, the Minister should bear in mind the role of the South African armed forces and the way in which they have invaded and occupied surrounding black states. He should also bear in mind the way in which they repress their own domestic population. I am sorry if the Minister finds that amusing, because it is not meant to be an amusing matter.
Those are the two matters to which I should like the Minister to respond.

Mr. Bill Walker: In the short time available, I shall confine my remarks to RAF matters. In doing so, I must declare an interest as a serving RAFVR officer.
I remind the Government that the EFA programme is very much welcomed by the RAF, along with the developments that are being made. We also welcome the fact that the demonstrator aircraft is now flying. Indeed, I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends that the F16 was originally built as a demonstrator and is now the most effective air superiority aircraft in the world. Therefore, there is hope that our demonstrator aircraft may spawn something worth while. We also welcome the Tornado programme and the Hawk air defence capability that has now been introduced.
I turn to an area that is causing concern — the airborne early warning task—but before doing so, I believe that the House would wish me to place on record our congratulations to all those who operate and maintain the elderly Shackleton aircraft fleet. There is no doubt that they have done a splendid job for many years. There must be no question of that vital area of RAF operations being required to accept aircraft or equipment that cannot fully meet the task requirements of the 1990s and the early part of the next century.
I remind the House that Soviet aircraft and sea-skimming Contour missiles will have the technology to confuse the present generation of radar. The need is for state of the art technology and for software. Anything less will not do. Decisions in that area can have a dramatic impact on the RAF's limited air defence capability.
Unless we can get the Tornado aircraft and the surface-to-air missiles locked on to targets at an early stage in the penetration of the United Kingdom's defence area, the massive investment that the nation has made in Tornado and other defence weapons systems will be substantially diminished in both value and effectiveness. That aspect of the United Kingdom's air defence needs must not be required to accept second best. Second best will not do. If GEC cannot meet the RAF's requirements, an alternative must be decided upon. That will be difficult, but it must be so. If that happens, other factors will also have to be considered, including the value of offset arrangements, the involvement of United Kingdom research and development, and the manufacturing and export order potential for anything that is bought.
It will not surprise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if I now turn to the basic trainer. What is the current situation? Is the programme on time? When will the RAF at Boscombe Down receive an aircraft for in-depth evaluation? When can the flying training units expect to receive their first production aircraft? Who will pay if modifications are required to bring the aircraft up to the air staff target requirement, or for any delays in the aircraft's introduction into service? By that I mean the cost of the revenue implications of running on the Jet Provost fleet.
I shall not delay the House with my concern over the helicopter needs of the Army and the RAF, as I believe that the matter was dealt with adequately in yesterday's debate. Suffice it to say, however, that I wish to add my name to the list of those who believe that an early decision is required, and I am glad that there will be a decision some time this year.
The Bulldog and Chipmunk aircraft are both due for substantial modification and re-equipment programmes. Before embarking on those programmes, perhaps consideration should be given to replacing both aircraft. After all, the Chipmunk is a 1948 design. I suggest that one or two of the British flight trainers that are available will suit the job. The Trago Mills or the Slingsby aircraft could be effective.
I come to a subject dear to me, which involves the air cadets and the splendid job done by their gliding schools and by the central gliding school establishment. I welcome the comments made yesterday at the end of the debate, and I draw attention to the need to maintain adequate airfield capacity. In particular, I wish to mention the problems in the north-east of England, in central Scotland—in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has an interest — and in southern England.
The problems that I wish to draw attention to involve the reactivating of No. 641 gliding school. The problems are not new. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be aware that many years ago—more than I care to mention—I was the last commanding officer of that school when it was active at RAF Dishforth, and before that at RAF Ouston which had been the base of the school for more than 20 years.
I believe that there is a real prospect of reactivating the school at what used to be RAF Ouston, which is now an army unit. To do so will require the agreement of the air traffic authorities at Newcastle airport. I do not wish to understate the difficulties that there may be in reaching an agreement. However, I believe that the radio equipment in the new air cadet training sail planes makes proper air control over operations at Ouston a viable proposition that should be pursued with considerable vigour.
The problems facing 662 gliding school at the army base at Kirknewton near Edinburgh are a different matter. They are more related to which of the services is the landlord and to the use of the aircraft hangars. The arrangements for air cadet gliding schools to operate from airfields that are run by one of the other services has, in the main, worked well. The best example that I can give is the marine base at Condor Arbroath where 662 gliding school has been based for almost 30 years, first with the Fleet Air Arm, with which I served as a chief flying instructor over 30 years ago, and later with the Marines. I wish only that the experience of 662 gliding school was the norm.
Sadly, there have been times when army units have not been as co-operative as the Royal Navy and the Marines. I hope that any members of the Army who read the debate will take note of the example set by the Marines and the Royal Navy. Because of this, and because airfields are not always suitable for conventional gliders, air cadets have been required to make use of their fleet of motor gliders, or self-launching gliders as they are sometimes called. The flexibility offered by this type of equipment cannot be overstated. If cadets in every part of the United Kingdom are to have access to gliding, a few more motor gliders will need to be purchased. In particular, I would recommend the purchase of the Grobb 109, which is the most cost-effective, off-the-shelf purchase.
A few extra motor gliders could help to solve the problem of operations from airfields that are unsuitable for conventional gliders. That is particularly the case in

southern England. That may be of particular interest to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces who is to wind up the debate, because it affects West Mailing which is in his constituency. It may make all the difference between gliding or no gliding for many hundreds, or possibly thousands, of cadets.
May I also ask what is the up-to-date situation with regard to the replacement of Land Rovers and the new winches for the gliding fleet at the conventional gliding schools. Finally, may I say how much the volunteer officers and instructors appreciated the remarks of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement in winding up last night. It is always appreciated when this House recognises the service that is given by these volunteers, for which they receive no recompense. The air cadet organisation has depended for many decades upon volunteers who give their time for nothing. May I thank my right hon. Friend— —

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I apologise for having to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he has run out of time.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: We all say things in this House that we live to regret. Yesterday, the Secretary of State said:
The House may agree with me that the actions of today's Opposition make the Luddites of old like wizards of high technology by comparison." — [Official Report, 30 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 717.]
That was said in relation to the strategic defence initiative. I was present at Ye Olde Cheddar Cheese in Fleet street when the Leader of the Opposition made his statement on SDI. That statement was gone through with many toothcombs by people who really know about these matters and it must be fully answered—as, indeed, must the Edinburgh meeting on 19 June between officials of the Secretary of State for Defence and scientists from Edinburgh university. I asked for that meeting on 9 December, to which the Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) agreed —and all credit to the right hon. Gentleman.
The Edinburgh scientists argued:
The design of the SDI system and its computing basis would be necessarily flawed.
Their detailed arguments are known to the Ministry of Defence, and they have to be answered.
The Edinburgh scientists also argued:
The implementation of that design in computer hardware and software would introduce further mistakes.
Professor Milner and his colleagues have to be answered. They also argued:
The system could not be adequately tested to uncover the resulting problems
and:
Artificial Intelligence offers no magic solutions.
The people who say this are not only the European but probably the world leaders in artificial intelligence.
They argued:
Once deployed, there would be failures that the system could not detect, which could be catastrophic
and:
British computing research would be diverted from more socially and industrially relevant work by SDI participation.
They also argued:
The research community would be divided and weakened by security requirements
and:


The impact on the British economy of SDI participation would be negative.
In particular, they said:
The SDI Battle Management System, if it were to be built, would be the largest and most complex real-time computer system ever. It would be composed of land, air- and space-based computers networked together, and its task would be to continuously monitor a vast array of sensors, determine when a hostile missile attack had occurred, determine the trajectories of the missiles, allocate first-layer weapons to missiles, direct their firing, assess the results and try again at the next layer.
This adds up to a game of celestial snooker.
Can we design such a computer system? And given such a design, could we construct it in a way that realised the design correctly? And having constructed it, could we trust it to do what we want it to do? The answer to all these questions, the experts say, is no.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): As this is a research programme to find the answers to exactly that sort of question, is not the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument that his friends who hold these strong views should join the research programme and prove their case, if that is what they want to do?

Mr. Dalyell: The difficulty, they say, is that in the absence of a spare planet, which the Ministry of Defence does not have, there is no way of testing SDI, but if the Ministry of Defence is saying that all the Edinburgh questions will be answered, I shall regard that as an achievement of my speech.
What chances, Dr. Henry Thompson says, are there of anyone surviving the doubtless automatic response to that very real assault to examine the programme and correct the flaw? How, for instance, does the Secretary of State for Defence answer Jane Hesketh, who says:
Although the system may be hierarchically defined, none of the above can be avoided, indeed they apply at all levels. Higher levels of the system must plan to cope with all the kinds of signals which may be manifested by lower levels, for whatever reason — correct operation, operator error, mechanical failure, component failure, power failure, enemy action etc.
Leaving Edinburgh, is it not a fact that the Prime Minister agreed to SDI in December 1984 on the basis of four conditions? One was that the United States would not try to achieve superiority; two,that deployment would be negotiated with the Soviet Union and would not violate the ABM treaty; three, that it would enhance, not undermine, deterrence; and four, that it would achieve security through East-West negotiations with reduced offensive weapons on both sides. I attended an all-day conference at Kensington town hall organised by Richard Ennals and Paul Walton on Wednesday last week, and my understanding is that three at least out of these four conditions have not been adhered to.
It is not simply a question of Luddites who are critical. The Institute of Strategic Studies is critical. The Senate Armed Services Committee in America has reduced the budget from $5·4 billion to $3·9 billion. There is undoubtedly great pressure from thousands of Washington lobbyists. Can we imagine an American situation where the Senate funds firms that are in competition with American firms? All right, as my hon. Friends have said, they may skim off the best of research at Heriot-Watt and elsewhere on optical physics and optical lasers, but when it comes to lucrative hardware, Seven hundred members of the US Academy of Sciences and 54 Nobel prize winners have come out

against it. Eighty Oxford academics in related subjects such as metallurgy and physics have come out against SDI. Many Scottish universities, reeling, as Glasgow as Edinburgh are, from financial cuts, have members who have come out against it.
I just ask, will the Secretary of State possibly interrupt me and say that he is prepared to answer point by point the continuing dialogue that the Edinburgh computer scientists are engaged in with his Department? Will he give the assurance that they will get a proper sustained hearing?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity. I will always do my best to answer any questions that he asks of me, of course, but if it is a question that his friends have strong views about the SDI programme, it is, I emphasise, a research programme and it is trying to find the answers which nobody knows to many of these problems. If he feels strongly about it. he should join in it and tell them the answers.

Mr. Dalyell: I have had my share of time.

9 pm

Mr. Conal Gregory: In this important debate on the Defence Estimates, I wish to raise two key points: first, the aspect of NATO purchasing of defence equipment, and, secondly, the issue of chemical weapons.
On the first point, a market place does not exist. The economic laws of nature do not apply. The civil commercial world does not exist. Indeed, the state is the consumer. Since we are discussing the survival of the protected, it is vital that our citizens have that security in both conventional and nuclear armaments, and that we ensure value for money. NATO has a collective military strategy but no collective approach towards providing the means to fulfil it. Surely we need some NATO structure for pooling resources. Too many NATO statements are of the motherhood variety such as, "We must safeguard the free world." Why is there not common funding for defence research? Although I understand that there are seven collaborative projects among NATO states, there is far too much duplication. In fact, a former Secretary of State for Defence has adequately explained this in some detail in speeches. Rather than my going through all the cases in the limited time available, I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of those and may allude to them in winding up.
Rather than have a fight between states that will develop a project, the Defence Ministers of NATO could spread out procurement among member states. I appreciate that there is an agreement on sharing technology such as between the United Kingdom and Spain and the valuable work of the Independent European Programme Group. This could be the embryo for a full-blown procurement programme.
I believe that there is an awareness in all NATO nations on both sides of the Atlantic that we face great challenges in our security arrangements. We must act as a collective, united group of democratic nations in meeting them.
The day has gone when Soviet quantitative superiority could be compensated by Western qualitative advantages. I am greatly worried about this gap of five to one on major equipment. Furthermore, the Western pact exercises its forces in a purely offensive manner. It is clear that Soviet military leaders, should they choose to attack, seek the capability rapidly to overrun NATO defence positions and bring a war in Europe to a rapid conclusion.
By modernising NATO's forces, the West can counter the threat from Soviet SS20 missiles and other weapons. Clearly a unified armed procurement policy within NATO will improve our defence position and the United Kingdom contribution to it.
My second point is about chemical weapons. In the late 1950s, Britain unilaterally abandoned chemical weapons. The pilot production plant for nerve agents in Cornwall was dismantled. Indeed, in the general election year of 1979 a party of international experts was invited to the Cornish site to see for themselves that it was possible to dismantle such production facilities safely. Today, as I understand it, Britain has no chemical weapons of her own and has no plans to re-acquire any. Research is concentrated on defensive measures, such as gasmasks and protective suits.
The United States has also stopped the manufacture of chemical weapons since 1969, but small stocks that are available to NATO exist in West Germany. I was discussing with NATO commanders last week on a visit to Brussels the difficulties that arise from that. Clearly, those stocks are becoming unstable after some 15 years. If there is to be replacement of that chemical weaponry, is it to be sited in Germany, in the United Kingdom, at say, Upper Heyford, or in the United States, our fellow member of NATO?
I appreciate the sincere belief of Opposition Members about the removal of nuclear deterrents, hut they do not answer the convincing argument in connection with chemical weaponry—that, although we have abandoned chemical weaponry, the Soviets have not followed suit. The best way to cope with the difficulties is for all nations to agree to the conclusion of a comprehensive and verifiable ban not only on the use but on the manufacture and stockpiling of chemical weapons, and to agree to destroy existing stocks. In the absence of an agreed ban, it will be necessary to continue to deter the Soviet Union from considering the use of its powerful chemical capability against the West. I understand that the United States proposes to modernise present stocks.
My right hon. Friend should push for such a treaty, whether in Vienna or Geneva, in his discussions with the Soviets. The talks aimed at a comprehensive agreement on chemical weapons began in the 1960s in the 18-nation disarmament committee. Initially, there was little pressure for a ban. The draft treaty of 1976, which is still on the table, should be pursued with alacrity by the new Secretary of State. The feeling in the Western world is that we have one of the best chances yet to conclude a treaty. The alernative is almost too horrific to contemplate, with the placing almost certainly in Britain of chemical weapons. If we are to seize the momentum in 1986, the chance is before us.
Diplomacy must succeed to ensure peace. But it will do so only if we have a realistic defence capability. I hope that my right hon. Friend will respond to the two key points that I have highlighted in the defence debate.

Several Hon. Members: rose— —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Martin O'Neill.

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you please ensure that it is placed on the record that I and several other hon. Members have

been unable to contribute to the debate? Indeed, many of my hon. Friends had to curtail their speeches severely. It is important that that is placed on the official record, because in the past it has been used as a slur against Labour Members that they were not interested in defence debates. That is clearly not the case now, but we have not been given the opportunity to participate.

Dr. Hampson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Chair rightly operated the 10 minute rule this evening. Could it possibly consider these double-day debates when four Front Bench spokesmen from each side take part? The time taken by the Front Bench so far has been enormous. There have been two 45-minute speeches, plus two of half-an-hour each. Yet there are still two of us who have failed to get in, despite a constituency interest.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I realise the disappointment of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and the hon. Member for Leeds, North West (Dr. Hampson) and other hon. Gentlemen, on both sides of the House, who have not been able to get into the debate today. All I can say, which I hope will be of some slight consolation, is that at the beginning of today's debate Mr. Speaker said that he would give some precedence to those who were here for a substantial part of yesterday's debate, and they just managed, in every case, to get called today. However, I apologise to the hon. Gentlemen. I am sure they will realise that the length of speeches from the Front Benches is a matter for the Front Benches and not for the Chair.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I think it is also fair to point out that statements were stacked up today, which prevented this debate from starting until way after 5 o'clock.
However, although it has started comparatively late, the debate has gone on for some 12 hours. At times, those of us who have to reply have some difficulty in remembering exactly what we are supposed to be debating. Some of the issues raised concern the past. There is a degree of repetition in debates of this length and I was casting around for a means of trying to pull some of the threads together. I remembered the nonconformist background of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), and I was led to the conclusion that I should perhaps seek a text.
I needed to look no further than the remarks of the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, who said last night that the message of the White Paper was
continuity, consolidation and realism".—[Official Report, 30 June 1986; Vol 100, c. 793]
I congratulate the Under-Secretary on his appointment and his speech, but I would point out that it is sometimes dangerous to confuse loyalty to one's colleagues and superiors with blindness to the truth.
Our contention is that this White Paper is a break with continuity. We believe that the consolidation in certain defence activities, which we would like to see, has been undermined and that realism is sadly lacking when it comes to the nuclear cloud which has hung over this debate. Throughout the debate we have had a series of speeches from hon. Members expressing constituency interests who have said that they want a particular project to be pursued although they have been extremely cautious


about what they can get out of the Government because of the financial strictures which have been placed upon expenditure.
Page 39 of last year's report from the Select Committee on Defence stated:
Both the Secretary of State"—
the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—
and the Chief of Defence Staff told us that, if level funding in reals terms is maintained then the programme would be manageable. Our view, which was confirmed by the thrust of the CDS's evidence, is that with the present policy there is bound to be a substantial real cut.
On that occasion there was a degree of difference, because the right hon. Member for Henley stated:
If you say to me would it do harm to reduce the defence budget by 7 per cent. I would think that it is an unthinkable denial of resources in the defence budget. There are no plans or any discussions or even information that such a thing could come about ".
The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman do not suggest a degree of continuity.
From the early days of this year, with the right hon. Gentleman's rapid departure and the arrival of the new rapid deployment force in the shape of the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), there has been a change of view especially with regard to consolidation.
There is not much hope for consolidation in relation to frigate orders. We have had the figure of 50 reduced to near 50, just about 50 or around 50. I am not sure where that comes in simple arithmetic. My understanding is that if one adds 40 and 10 one gets 50. If one takes 10 away from 50 one does not get Younger, one gets Nott. This will not be the consolidation process which we expected considering the speech of the Under-Secretary last night.
As for realism, frankly, the document is undermined by the need to find money and resources from other budgets to fund the independent strategic nuclear strike force—a strike force which was described elsewhere as an expensive luxury, irrelevant both to the needs of NATO and to Britain's defence. I do not use those words lightly. They were used by a distinguished former soldier, whom I think is known to everyone.
The heart of the debate lies in paragraph 503 on page 40 of the statement on Defence Estimates where it says:
Although the budget for 1986–87 and the two subsequent years, as published in the recent Public Expenditure White Paper, is planned to rise in cash terms, its value in real terms will decrease by about 6 per cent. over the three-year period.
The use of the word "about" could mean that it might be 5 per cent. or 7 per cent., but certainly we are seeing a massive cut in the defence budget which, according to the statement on the Defence Estimates, will require difficult decisions to be taken.
I want to remind the House that the proposed cuts will probably amount to something in the order of 6·4 per cent. over the years between 1984–85 and 1988–89. As I understand it, that will have the effect of cutting the equipment budget overall by about 10 per cent. up to 1989. The impact will not necessarily be felt on new equipment immediately, but it is certainly true to say that non-Trident new equipment will be cut in real terms by something in the order of 25 per cent.
Those figures were used by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and they have some currency as they come from the Defence Information Group — a respectable research group. If, as I go through the figures, there is any possibility that they are wrong, I hope that the Minister will correct my arithmetic

when he replies because I know that the academics who have prepared those figures would be interested to see where their findings have gone astray.
It is true that the Labour party has continually expressed the desire to cut defence expenditure. We want to see a shift in our national priorities. In 1979 for every £100 spent on education and science some £79 was spent on defence. Five years later in 1984, for every £100 spent on education and science, £101 was spent on defence.
Meeting our responsibilities within the Western Alliance means that spending levels may well have to be sustained at those almost unacceptable levels because we recognise that the next Government will have to repair the damage to the conventional budget which the figures that we have been discussing this evening will inflict upon that budget.
Where will those cuts be made? We have heard it said that expenditure on Trident will rise from the 198485 figure of £ 163 million to about £900 million in 1988–89. 'To fund that, conventional spending will have to be cut by about 10·8 per cent. in real terms over the next four years.
It has been made clear, and I think that all hon. Members would agree, that any cuts of that nature should not come out of the spending on personnel. At the mornent the personnel budget accounts for about 35 per cent. of the whole budget. It is suggested that there may well be some reductions in personnel— about 2·5 per cent. in the numbers for the armed forces and about 6 to 7 per cent. in the numbers of civilians.
But, frankly, there may well have to be an increase in the figure of 35 per cent. if service wages are to keep up with outside pay and conditions. At the moment the Government are taking consolation from the fact that fewer people are leaving the services now than in the late 1980s, but in their complacency they seem to forget that there are now 3·5 million people out of work, whereas in the 1970s the figure was barely one third of that. At that time Britain's defence industries were looking forward with some optimism to future increases in defence expenditure and were head-hunting for people to fill gaps in their organisations. I realise that account may have to be taken of possible cuts in the Falklands commitment. We are led to believe that the figure will have been reduced to about £165 million in 1988–89 from an outturn figure of about £684 million in the last financial year for which we have figures. Even allowing for that, however, conventional spending excluding the Falklands will still fall by about 8·1 per cent.
As well as the Falklands, there may well be a fall caused by the reduction in oil prices. However, the largest part of the cuts will be found in the 46 per cent. of the budget accounted for by equipment. Between 1978–79 and 1984–85 that budget grew by about 47·5 per cent., or 6·7 per cent. per annum in real terms. Government Members have continually stressed that figure. The increase was split almost evenly between new equipment and spares and maintenance. In sea systems there was a 38 per cent. increase, in land systems a 52 per cent. increase and— largely because of Tornado—there was a 63 per cent. increase in air systems. According to the Estimates, between 1985–86 and 1986–87 there will be a cut of 4·8 per cent. in real terms of which spares, maintenance and repairs will account for just over 13 per cent. Expenditure on land systems—ammunitions, mines and explosives—will fall from £322 million in 1984 to £190 million in 1987.
In air systems—aircraft, engine support, instruments and avionics, the edges of technology—expenditure will fall from £1,001 million to £752 million.
I appreciate that some hon. Members may find these figures tedious. However, although they may not read my remarks in Hansard for their flow of eloquence, they may well recall them when, during the long recess, they meet the firms in their constituencies that are engaged in the armaments business and begin to find out what is happening on the other side of the counter and what problems are arising about the orders.
In avionics and air systems, there is a drop of £250 million.

Mr. Cecil Franks: During the recess, I shall meet the managing director of Vickers. The hon. Gentleman met him too some time ago. The hon. Gentleman frequently quotes or misquotes the managing director. May I ask him a question that the managing director has put to me? If there is a general election on Thursday and on Friday the Labour Government cancels Trident, what will the lads in the yard do on Monday morning? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not say, "build more hunter-killer submarines". There are such things as design work and long lead orders. What will my constituents do on Monday morning after a Labour victory?

Mr. O'Neill: I made a mistake in allowing the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) to intervene. Had he been here for most of the debate——

Mr. Best: Answer.

Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) has attended at least one day of the debate and has heard some of the Labour arguments. As far as I know, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness entered the Chamber only a few moments ago and appeared briefly yesterday afternoon.
When it was seeking control of the privatised yard the firm stated in its prospectus that it was confident that a Labour Government would find work for the yard. I am sure that the managing director would not mislead the people to the extent that has been suggested. It may be that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the answers that have been given repeatedly, but the position is clear. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I must move on.
At present the RAF has had to forgo the delivery of Tornados because the Tornados which it was to receive have gone to Saudi. That represents a new style of cuts and savings because equipment which was destined for the RAF but which goes to another country, conveniently, does not appear in the accounts for the forthcoming year.
It is anticipated that the cost of the sea systems will increase from about £163 million in 1984–85 to about £500 million in 1986–87. Although there are also to be some changes in shore construction, probably at Rosyth, the net non-Trident cut in sea systems will be about 8 per cent.
This evening, there have already been repeated requests for a clear, explicit statement as soon as possible about what the frigate orders will be. We are anxious that the statement is made before the recess and that it will give the number of ships. This evening we should like to know how many ships will be ordered, and the correct answers to

questions 503, 504 and 505 in the Select Committee document. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) says, the answers given by Mr. Levene to the Committee are untrue, it raises serious problems about the way in which the Chief of Defence Procurement conducts his relations with the Select Committee. One would have thought that those relations are central to parliamentary scrutiny of the procurement side of the budget.
The Minister has already had more than two hours to find an answer to that, and this evening we expect a response from him. Grave allegations have been made and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who pursued Mr. Levene in Committee, is entitled to have the position made clear. He is extremely embarrassed at the way in which the matter has been raised.
The equipment budget, regardless of spares and so on, has been a source of pride to Conservative Members. Indeed, the Government have kept their word about supplying the forces. In 1984–85 the figure stood at £7,961 million, but by 1988–89 it will have decreased to £7,125 million. If expenditure on Trident is excluded there will be a decrease of about 20 per cent. over four years. If the ongoing side of the fares and maintenance is excluded, non-Trident new equipment will fall from about £4,600 million to £3,500 million—a reduction of 25 per cent.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) mentioned that figure in his speech. In many respects his speech was a model of concision, given the difficulties he had in speaking in the debate. I must say that the hon. Gentleman probably said much more in 10 minutes today than the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said in 50 minutes yesterday. However, in the midst of his remarks about the desirability of a complete test ban, the hon. Gentleman did not say whether the Liberals would have a successor to Polaris and would go along with the right hon. Member for Devonport. If they are to have a successor to Polaris, would it be tested? There must be a new kind of device which does not need testing, one which will work the first time that it is used. [Interruption.] In addition to all his other qualities, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) assumes to himself the qualities of prescience and omnipresence. The analysis and the criticism were prefectly acceptable, but sadly the conclusions left a great deal to be desired.

Mr. Wallace: Many warheads have already been tested and we know they all go bang. I am not saying that we would have a successor to Polaris, but it would not be an insurmountable problem if at the end of the day we decided that there was a need for it.

Mr. O'Neill: If the report in The Guardian yesterday was correct, one can have big bombs or no bombs and if one is a member of the alliance one can have small bombs, because somehow they are acceptable. They are like the Victorian chambermaid's illegitimate child — it is all right if it is a little one. Perhaps the alliance has not yet made up its mind. Perhaps at its conference in Eastbourne the alliance will reach its conclusions.
The nature of the Estimates that the Secretary of State has presented will result in 1988–89 in new equipment spending being no higher than it was in 1979–80. We will


be back to where we started, to the beginning of the so-called fat years. Many things must be done to ensure that our contribution to the NATO Alliance is sustained. We have heard in debates elsewhere that decisions cannot be evaded by using a combination of gimmicks and sleight of hand. It is quite clear that orders will be postponed. Only nine frigates have so far been ordered and that is 12 fewer than we ought to have. A former Chief Sea Lord has said that this is a figure of extraordinary discrepancy.
Savings cannot come from a tail to teeth exercise and they certainly cannot come from the privatisation of the dockyards. The Government will have to face some choices before 1988–89. They will have to decide whether there is to be a reduction in the British Army of the Rhine and whether there will be a reduction from 50 to 40 frigates. They will have to decide whether to sell off any of the Invincible class carriers.
There is an absence of any definite or specific expression of commitment about the role of the amphibious craft mentioned in paragraph 42. Last year the Select Committee said:
If the UK does not replace us amphibious capability NATO reinforcement plans for the Northern flank will be in jeopardy.
Given that the Government are unlikely to renege on Tornado, a large question must be raised about the orders for 250 of the European fighter aircraft. The role of Britain within NATO must be a non-nuclear one. That is a role in keeping with our economic position and with a need to secure a degree of peace and security within Europe. The Opposition recognise that in other parts of the House there is a lack of enthusiasm for that policy, but we also know that throughout Britain, following the bombing of Libya and the frightening experience for Europe of the Chernobyl disaster, people are clearly aware of the size of Europe and of the dangers of an explosion equivalent to a kilotonne shell that is not even on the surface. Chernobyl was not an air burst. The fear and anxiety surrounding an explosion of that scale has brought to many people's minds the cruel reality of what even a limited nuclear exchange would be like.
In keeping with this country's tradition as a source of peace and security throughout the world, especially in Europe, we must modify our ambitions, in conjunction with countries which are in the NATO Alliance —Canada, Norway, Denmark and Spain—and which have just decided to commit themselves to a non-nuclear policy within NATO. As Lord Carrington said, it is an a la carte NATO. There are many precedents. We recognise that our American allies will not be over-impressed by what we are doing. But it is an alliance. It is a group of partners who should be able to agree and disagree and come together again. We believe that our policies and those embodied in our amendment are sufficient to require the support of the House. I invite my hon. Friends and other hon. Members to join us in the Lobbies to ensure that our policy becomes this country's policy.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): The fundamental point to which the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) did not address himself was that a non-nuclear policy within NATO is a contradiction. If every member of NATO pursued that policy, there would be nothing left of the NATO Alliance.
Inevitably we have spent a great deal of time talking about defence policies, but just as important are the men and women of the armed forces. Since our debate last year they have been on duty in the United Kingdom and in 64 countries overseas. Many have served in very demanding conditions. They have served at sea, under the sea, in every type of terrain and climate and in all types of flying conditions, ranging from the best to the appalling. They have been engaged in life-saving operations in Ethiopia, Mexico, Colombia, Aden and Jamaica, and in search and rescue throughout the United Kingdom.
Very sadly, a further 11 service men have given their lives, including, I am sorry to say, a UDR soldier who was killed earlier today, in the counter-terrorist operations that are conducted with skill and great determination in Northern Ireland. I know that all hon. Members will applaud the consistent standards of excellence shown by our armed services throughout the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who opened the debate after my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, referred to the Opposition's policy on chemical weapons. He made an important statement of policy when he said that there would be no deployment of chemical weapons to the United Kingdom under any circumstances. In reality, that means that the Labour party is eliminating the option for all time and in all future circumstances, which cannot possibly be foreseen, of giving the people of this country the defence of a chemical deterrent against the massive chemical capability or the Soviet Union, which can reach any western European country, including our own. I believe that that is an irresponsible position to take.

Mr. Churchill: rose— —

Mr. Stanley: I shall give way to my hon. Friend a little later. I want to make further progress.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) made some pertinent points about the regional aspects of arms control. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), gave us his strong views in favour of the repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act. It is an extremely difficult issue, with some important implications. There are two sides to it. I doubt that the provision would have lasted 40 years on the statute book under successive Governments if there had not been a strong case for it, although the right hon. Gentleman has advanced arguments against it. I assure the right hon. Gentleman, as we have recently said, that we are trying to complete the review as quickly as possible. It is well advanced.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of Mr. Meredith and asked what guidance is given in relation to section 10 and recruitment. I should like to look further into those points. I shall, of course, be glad to write to him about them.
My hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) gave us the benefit of their recent visits to the Falklands. I am grateful to them for giving the House their first-hand reactions. I accept their points about the importance of mail in relation to morale, the issue of the


Falkland Islands pay rules and possible delays in the receipt of World Cup videos. I assure my hon. Friends that I shall look personally at those matters when I am in the Falklands in a few weeks' time.
The hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) made a number of detailed points about Mr. Levene's evidence to the Select Committee of Defence. It is not possible within the compass of this debate to produce detailed responses to the hon. Gentlemen's points, but I assure them that they will be considered carefully by the Department.

Mr. Douglas: That is not good enough. Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stanley: If I may, I should like to continue a little further.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West raised the issue of apprenticeships. I assure him that contractors for Rosyth are required to set out in their responses to the invitation to tender proposals for apprenticeships, and they will be carefully considered by the Government.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stanley: I shall continue just for the moment. I am going to reply to those hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) referred to a number of aspects of the equipment programme——

Mr. O'Neill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A serious question has been raised in the debate relating to the activities of a civil servant, and there has been adequate time to obtain an answer. The Minister is refusing to provide the House with information that is available to him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): This must be a matter for the Minister.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member for Eccles made——

Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on this point?

Mr. Stanley: —a number of points on various aspects of the defence programme. I very much welcome his support for the European fighter aircraft programme.

Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker —[Hon. Members: "Stand up."]—I am standing up. I hesitate to raise a point of order and interrrupt the Minister's speech, but serious points have been raised during the debate concerning the commercial relationships between the Ministry of Defence and large companies. The House and those companies should not have to wait any longer. The Minister has had ample opportunity to consult the civil servant, who is within the precincts, to get this vital information.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are at the end of a two-day debate. I hope that the House will give the Minister an opportunity to answer it.

Mr. Stanley: I say to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West that I have done my best to try to

answer the points raised by many other hon. Members apart from him. I am trying to do my best to respond in the limited time available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) made a characteristically individualistic and witty contribution. I think that I would agree more with his comments about the Labour party than with his comments on the implications of the Government's defence policy, but we certainly enjoyed his wit.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) made some important points on racial discrimination. He asked for a clear statement of policy on that issue. I am glad to draw his attention to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces on 12 June, in which he said:
No form of racial discrimination is tolerated either in recruitment or subsequent employment. Any complaint of racial discrimination brought by a member of the Army concerning his treatment in the service would be fully investigated under the redress of grievances procedures." [Official Report, 12 June 1986; Vol. 99, c.292.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) spoke strongly in favour of the early flotation of the royal ordnance factories. He made a strong plea for them not to be broken up and for an early decision on the 7th Challenger Regiment. He addressed his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who was in his place and who I am sure will have taken careful note of the points made.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that budgetary pressures will necessitate some difficult decisions. In his speech yesterday he said that some items are having to be deleted from the equipment programme and others are having to be delayed. However, he also made the point that we are pressing ahead with improvements all the time. We are constantly making judgments on priorities and adjusting the programme accordingly.
Against that background, the House will be glad to know that among the items for which we have made financial provision for the first time are the replacement of our amphibious shipping, Rapier for the United Kingdom-Netherlands force, an area defence missile for the next generation of surface ships, a Sea Harrier attrition buy, a 7th Challenger Regiment, and additional attrition buys of Tornado. I stress that that all represents financial provision rather than firm commitments, but to present a balanced picture the House should be aware that we are engaged in a continuous process of trying to reallocate funds in relation to changing priorities. I believe that the House will welcome those arrangements.

Mr. Best: In the provision for the replacement of our amphibious forces, how much has been provided for, and does that include a new Commando carrier? If so, is it to be a converted merchant vessel, or a properly defended one?

Mr. Stanley: I cannot give that degree of detail to my hon. Friend. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said, those are all details which will have to await the decision which will be taken later this year.
The House has spent a considerable amount of time considering the future of the British deterrent. The first point that must be made is that the decision whether there should be a successor system to Polaris has to be taken now if Britain is to have continuity of a viable deterrent


in the 1990s. That decision cannot be delayed, and I was glad that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) agreed with that view in his speech yesterday.
It is totally unrealistic to think that one can get a viable replacement system researched, developed, manufactured, tested and fully into service inside 10 years, as the alliance seems to think, let alone the European strategic cruise missile system which the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) seems to want Britain to have. That system is not on the drawing board in any European country, and it is wholly unrealistic to think that one can delay that decision.
The second point is that one cannot expect to deter a nuclear threat with conventional forces today any more than the Japanese could in 1945. The only deterrent to nuclear is nuclear. Therefore, the basic argument advanced by the Opposition that we should simply scrap our nuclear capability and replace it with conventional capability does not stand up in defence terms. There is perhaps some doubt whether the Opposition are determined to use the whole of the Trident programme for conventional defence. We heard yesterday from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has apparently said that the Trident money would be used in the Health Service.
The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman's commitment that the Labour party would use the Trident money for defence purposes would purchase, in the front line, perhaps three additional armoured divisions. To put that into perspective, the Warsaw pact in peace time on the central front has nearly 60 armoured divisions, and that figure would be increased rapidly to more than 90 by readily available reinforcements. Against that background, it is clear that we would achieve only a relatively marginal increase in conventional capability, even if we used all the money involved for conventional purposes.
My third point—here I agree with the hon. Member for Devonport—is that the British people are entitled to know the views of all political parties on whether Polaris should he replaced. The right hon. Gentleman has been admirably clear on this point, and he has made his apologies for his absence tonight. He has said bluntly that he believes that we should remain a nuclear weapons state. That does not seem to be entirely in accord even with the Members of the SDP. Indeed, the president of the SDP, Mrs. Shirley Williams, with her characteristic decisiveness, said:
The present policy of the SDP is that the party is willing to replace Polaris under certain circumstances, but is not irrevocably committed to doing so.
That is the present position of the president of the SDP, but I agree with the right hon. Member for Devonport that the matter must be made clear.
The policy of the official Opposition has the merit of being clear. The right hon. Member for Llanelli said that the Polaris force will be scrapped in quick time, "in the first phase," as he described it, of the implementation of Labour's non-nuclear policy. However, we understand that the scrapping of Polaris by the Labour Government —if there is a Labour Government, and we believe that that is improbable with their defence policy—would be accompanied by a little arms control agreement between Britain and the Soviet Union.
We read that during his recent visit to India the Leader of the Opposition said that a Labour Government would take up Mr. Gorbachev's offer to negotiate separate

nuclear weapon cuts with Britain. The key point was that Mr. Gorbachev was now prepared to talk in terms of equivalent missile-for-missile reductions. What a brilliant and masterly arms control agreement that would be. It would certainly be brilliant and masterful for the Soviet Union. It would leave the Russians with 880 strategic missiles at sea and 1,398 strategic missiles on land, and Britain with precisely zero. Only the Opposition could have fallen hook, line and sinker for that one.
It would be completely irresponsible to scrap our Polaris deterrent when it has some years of life left in it, and when it has just been modernised with Chevalme, following the wish of the Labour Government. It would be irresponsible to scrap it when it has been confirmed once again at the most recent meeting of the NATO nuclear planning group that our strategic deterrent is fully supported by our NATO partners. The Labour party's commitment to scrap our Polaris force immediately is completely irresponsible in defence and economic terms.
I turn to the position of the so-called alliance on this issue. I do not believe that the Liberal party's position is any different from that of the official Opposition — [Interruption.] As the Daily Mirror said:
Labour would have us throw away our gun now. The Liberals would wait until it was useless.
That more or less sums up the situation.
I see that the Leader of the Liberal party has recently been lashing out at the media over their ignorance of defence matters compared with his deep understanding of them. Last month he wrote:
Some of the more ignorant commentators have portrayed Britain without Polaris as being virtually defenceless. They forget, for instance, that we already have nuclear armed Tornado squadrons.
If the right hon. Gentleman believes that the Tornado aircraft represent any sort of deterrent to the massive Soviet strategic nuclear capability, he should direct his charge of ingnorance, not at the commentators but at himself.
The Liberal party has again and again said that it does not wish to replace Polaris. It is on the side of the one-side disarmers in this debate, and it should have the gumption to say so. The other part of the so-called alliance is hooked on to the right policy of ensuring that our country remains a nuclear capable power, but is hooked on to a wholly incorrect way of implementing it.

Mr. Douglas: Perhaps the Minister will now clarify a point that I asked him to make clear earlier. The questions that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) asked in the Select Committee need only yes or no answers. It is extremely important that we should have those answers now. The Minister has had ample time during the debate to find out the answers, especially as the official responsible has been within the precincts of the House.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) have raised some detailed points in relation to evidence given to the Select Committee. They need to be looked at in far more detail than is possible this evening.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stanley: Although the SDP is right to have adopted a policy of replacing Polaris, it has chosen the wrong


means of implementing it. Sea-lauched cruise missiles are not more, but less, cost-effective. The alternative put forward by the SDP is either a deterrent that is below the minimum threshold and thus will not deter, or a deterrent which, if it is to be credible, will cost much more than Trident.
I notice that the leader of the Liberal party, in a recent interview on "Weekend World", was asked how he viewed his relationship with the right hon. Member for Devonport. He replied:
Divorce never but murder occasionally".
If the right hon. Member for Devonport was here, I would say that if he wants to save his skin and ensure his physical protection, a minor adjustment in his defence policy that takes it a little further in our direction would enable him to do that.
The other major issue to have surfaced in the debate is the future of the American bases in this country. The Labour party's commitment is one of the most damaging and serious defence commitments to be made by any political party in this country. It will have serious consequences in Europe, where it may set in train a process whereby other countries are tempted to follow suit, but the implications for Capitol hill and for Washington itself may be much more significant. Many Americans will say that if Britain or Europe does not want them, they should start to pull out. They will start to pull out. They will pull out not only their nuclear but also their conventional assets. The policy of the official Opposition will undermine NATO and will seriously reduce the defence capability of this country———

Mr. Norman Hogg: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 346.

Division No. 237]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Campbell, Ian


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Canavan, Dennis


Anderson, Donald
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clarke, Thomas


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clay, Robert


Ashton, Joe
Clelland, David Gordon


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cohen, Harry


Barnett, Guy
Coleman, Donald


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Conlan, Bernard


Bell, Stuart
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blair, Anthony
Craigen, J. M.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Crowther, Stan


Boyes, Roland
Dalyell, Tam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Deakins, Eric


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Dewar, Donald


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dixon, Donald


Caborn, Richard
Dormand, Jack


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Douglas, Dick





Dubs, Alfred
Maynard, Miss Joan


Duffy, A. E. P.
Meacher, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Michie, William


Eastham, Ken
Mikardo, Ian


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ewing, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Faulds, Andrew
Nellist, David


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
O'Brien, William


Fisher, Mark
O'Neill, Martin


Flannery, Martin
Park, George


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Patchett, Terry


Forrester, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Foster, Derek
Pendry, Tom


Foulkes, George
Pike, Peter


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Garrett, W. E.
Radice, Giles


George, Bruce
Randall, Stuart


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Raynsford, Nick


Gould, Bryan
Richardson, Ms Jo


Gourlay, Harry
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Robertson, George


Harman, Ms Harriet
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rogers, Allan


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Rooker, J. W.


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rowlands, Ted


Heffer, Eric S.
Ryman, John


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sedgemore, Brian


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Sheerman, Barry


Home Robertson, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hoyle, Douglas
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hume, John
Skinner, Dennis


Janner, Hon Greville
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Snape, Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Soley, Clive


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Lambie, David
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Lamond, James
Strang, Gavin


Leadbitter, Ted
Straw, Jack


Leighton, Ronald
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Litherland, Robert
Tinn, James


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Torney, Tom


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


McCartney, Hugh
Wareing, Robert


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Weetch, Ken


McKelvey, William
White, James


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Williams, Rt Hon A.


McNamara, Kevin
Winnick, David


McTaggart, Robert
Woodall, Alec


McWilliam, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Madden, Max



Marek, Dr John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Mr. Allen McKay and


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Mr. Chris Smith.


Maxton, John



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Alexander, Richard
Baldry, Tony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alton, David
Batiste, Spencer


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Amess, David
Beith, A. J.


Ancram, Michael
Bellingham, Henry


Arnold, Tom
Bendall, Vivian


Ashdown, Paddy
Benyon, William


Aspinwall, Jack
Best, Keith


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bevan, David Gilroy


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Blackburn, John






Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Peter
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodlad, Alastair


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gorst, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gow, Ian


Bright, Graham
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brinton, Tim
Greenway, Harry


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gregory, Conal


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Browne, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bruce, Malcolm
Grist, Ian


Bruinvels, Peter
Ground, Patrick


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grylls, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butcher, John
Hancock, Michael


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Hanley, Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Hannam, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Carttiss, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Cartwright, John
Hayes, J.


Cash, William
Hayward, Robert


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chapman, Sydney
Heddle, John


Chope, Christopher
Henderson, Barry


Churchill, W. S.
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hickmet, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hicks, Robert


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hind, Kenneth


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hirst, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Colvin, Michael
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Conway, Derek
Holt, Richard


Coombs, Simon
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cope, John
Howard, Michael


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Cranborne, Viscount
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Critchley, Julian
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Crouch, David
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howells, Geraint


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Dicks, Terry
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hunter, Andrew


Dover, Den
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Irving, Charles


Dunn, Robert
Jackson, Robert


Durant, Tony
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Dykes, Hugh
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Emery, Sir Peter
Johnston, Sir Russell


Evennett, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Fallon, Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Farr, Sir John
Kennedy, Charles


Favell, Anthony
Key, Robert


Fletcher, Alexander
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Kirkwood, Archy


Forman, Nigel
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Knowles, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Knox, David


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Franks, Cecil
Lang, Ian


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Latham, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Lawler, Geoffrey


Freud, Clement
Lawrence, Ivan


Fry, Peter
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Gale, Roger
Lee, John (Pendle)


Galley, Roy
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Lester, Jim





Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lilley, Peter
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Livsey, Richard
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rost, Peter


Lord, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Lyell, Nicholas
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


McCrindle, Robert
Ryder, Richard


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Macfarlane, Neil
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Sayeed, Jonathan


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Maclean, David John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Maclennan, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Malins, Humfrey
Shersby, Michael


Maples, John
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Marland, Paul
Silvester, Fred


Marlow, Antony
Sims, Roger


Mates, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maude, Hon Francis
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Speed, Keith


Mellor, David
Speller, Tony


Merchant, Piers
Spencer, Derek


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Squire, Robin


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Miscampbell, Norman
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Steen, Anthony


Moate, Roger
Stern, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stokes, John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Sumberg, David


Moynihan, Hon C.
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mudd, David
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Neale, Gerrard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Newton, Tony
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Normanton, Tom
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Norris, Steven
Thornton, Malcolm


Onslow, Cranley
Thurnham, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Ottaway, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Trippier, David


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pattie, Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Pawsey, James
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waldegrave, Hon William


Penhaligon, David
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Pollock, Alexander
Wall, Sir Patrick


Porter, Barry
Wallace, James


Portillo, Michael
Waller, Gary


Powley, John
Walters, Dennis


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Price, Sir David
Warren, Kenneth


Prior, Rt Hon James
Watson, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Watts, John


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Raffan, Keith
Wheeler, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Whitfield, John


Rathbone, Tim
Whitney, Raymond


Rhodes James, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Winterton, Nicholas


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wood, Timothy


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Yeo, Tim






Young, Sir George (Acton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Younger, Rt Hon George
Mr. Carol Mather and



Mr.Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 42.

Division No. 238]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Dickens, Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Amess, David
Dover, Den


Ancram, Michael
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Arnold, Tom
Dunn, Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Durant, Tony


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Dykes, Hugh


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Emery, Sir Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Evennett, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Baldry, Tony
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fallon, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Farr, Sir John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Favell, Anthony


Bellingham, Henry
Fletcher, Alexander


Bendall, Vivian
Fookes, Miss Janet


Benyon, William
Forman, Nigel


Best, Keith
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Sir Marcus


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Franks, Cecil


Blackburn, John
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
Fry, Peter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gale, Roger


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Galley, Roy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bright, Graham
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Brinton, Tim
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brooke, Hon Peter
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Goodlad, Alastair


Browne, John
Gorst, John


Bruinvels, Peter
Gow, Ian


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gower, Sir Raymond


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Greenway, Harry


Budgen, Nick
Gregory, Conal


Bulmer, Esmond
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Butcher, John
Grist, Ian


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Ground, Patrick


Butterfill, John
Grylls, Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cash, William
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hanley, Jeremy


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hannam, John


Chapman, Sydney
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Chope, Christopher
Harris, David


Churchill, W. S.
Harvey, Robert


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayes, J.


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayward, Robert


Clegg, Sir Walter
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Cockeram, Eric
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Colvin, Michael
Heddle, John


Conway, Derek
Henderson, Barry


Coombs, Simon
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, John
Hickmet, Richard


Couchman, James
Hicks, Robert


Cranborne, Viscount
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Critchley, Julian
Hind, Kenneth


Crouch, David
Hirst, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)





Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Normanton, Tom


Holt, Richard
Norris, Steven


Hordern, Sir Peter
Onslow, Cranley


Howard, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Ottaway, Richard


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pawsey, James


Hunter, Andrew
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pollock, Alexander


Irving, Charles
Porter, Barry


Jackson, Robert
Portillo, Michael


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Powley, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Price, Sir David


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Key, Robert
Raffan, Keith


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rathbone, Tim


Knowles, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Knox, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Latham, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rost, Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rowe, Andrew


Lester, Jim
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Ryder, Richard


Lilley, Peter
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lord, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lyell, Nicholas
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McCrindle, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Silvester, Fred


Maclean, David John
Sims, Roger


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Malins, Humfrey
Speed, Keith


Maples, John
Speller, Tony


Marland, Paul
Spencer, Derek


Marlow, Antony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mates, Michael
Squire, Robin


Maude, Hon Francis
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Mellor, David
Stern, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stokes, John


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Sumberg, David


Moate, Roger
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mudd, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Neale, Gerrard
Thurnham, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Neubert, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Newton, Tony
Trippier, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian






van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Wheeler, John


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Whitfield, John


Viggers, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Waldegrave, Hon William
Winterton, Nicholas


Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Wolfson, Mark


Wall, Sir Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Waller, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Walters, Dennis
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Warren, Kenneth



Watson, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watts, John
Mr. Carol Mather and


Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


NOES


Alton, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashdown, Paddy
Freud, Clement


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hancock, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bruce, Malcolm
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Caborn, Richard
Johnston, Sir Russell


Canavan, Dennis
Kennedy, Charles


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Kirkwood, Archy


Cartwright, John
Lamond, James


Clay, Robert
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)





Livsey, Richard
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


McKelvey, William
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Maclennan, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wainwright, R.


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wallace, James


Meadowcroft, Michael
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mikardo, Ian



Nellist, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Penhaligon, David
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and


Pike, Peter
Mr. Harry Cohen.

Question accordingly agreed.

Resolved,
That this House approves the statement on the Defence Estimates 1986, contained in Cmnd. 9763.

Business of the House

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to European Communities (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Garel-Jones.]

European Communities (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Committee. Report and Third Reading: time allotted for proceedings
1. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings, but—

(a) proceedings in Committee shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the House next resolves itself into a Committee on the Bill; and
(b) proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee.

Proceedings on going into Committee
2. When the Order of the day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, notwithstanding that notice of an Instruction has been given.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
3. On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Order of consideration
4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken.

Re-committal
5. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, re-committal.
(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise) and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any Amendment moved to the Question.

Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Exclusion of Business Committee
7. Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Conclusion of proceedings
8. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings on the Bill to a conclusion in pursuance of this Order the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question, That the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any Amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that Amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

Supplemental orders
9.— (1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on the day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving
10. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order.

Interpretation
11. In this Order 'the Bill' means the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the following: amendment (a), in (1), leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert:
'the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at such times after the start as are shown in the following Table ("the start" for this purpose being the time when the House next resolves itself into a Committee on the Bill):

TABLE


Proceedings
Time for conclusion of Proceedings


Amendment No. 7
1 hour


Amendment No. 9
2 hours


Amendments Nos. 11 and 14
3 hours


Amendments Nos. 47 and 22, the remainder of Clause No. 1, Clause No.2, and Clause No. 3 to the end of subsection (3).
4 hours


Amendment No. 46 and remaining proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading
5 hours

Amendment (b), in (1), leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert:
: 'the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at such times after the start as are shown in the following Table ("the start" for this purpose being the time when the House next resolves into a Committee on the Bill):
Provided that, in calculating such times, no account shall be taken of time spent on Divisions:

TABLE


Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


Amendment No. 7
2 hours


Amendment No. 9
4 hours


Amendments Nos. 11 and 14
6 hours


Amendments Nos. 47 and 22, the remainder of Clause No. 1, Clause No.2, and Clause No. 3 to the end of subsection (3).
8 hours


Amendment No. 46 and remaining proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading
10 hours.'.

Amendment (c), in (1), line 6, leave out 'two' and insert 'fifteen'.

Amendment (e), in (1)(b), leave out from 'shall' to the end of line 9 and insert:
:'not be on the same day as proceedings in Committee, nor brought to a conclusion until after six hours.'.

Mr. Biffen: The motion before us today would provide a timetable for the remaining stages of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill in this House. While our Standing Orders do not formally recognise constitutional Bills as a separate category of legislation, I would not seek to deny the constitutional importance of the Bill. Later, I propose to deal more generally with the nature of the passage of constitutional Bills, and the problems that it can pose. First, however, I shall say a few words about the passage of the Bill so far and about the timing and content of the timetable motion. The main purpose of the Bill is


to incorporate into our law the agreement reached in the Single European Act. That Act was signed by representatives of all member states of the European Community at Luxembourg in February this year. Its roots lie in the European Council's meeting at Fontainebleau in 1984. Perhaps the most important provision of the Single European Act relates to completion of the internal market within the European Community and the greater use of qualified majority voting. The Act also allows for the establishment of a new court of first instance related to the European Court of Justice. Beyond the Single European Act and the court which it creates, the Bill itself gives effect also to the formal change of name of the "European Assembly" to "European Parliament'.
They are important matters, both substantively and symbolically. For that reason, we have provided a significant amount of time for the House to debate them. The Second Reading debate of the Bill, which took place on 23 April, lasted a full day, and we have had extensive discussions in Committee. The Bill received its Second Reading with the clear majority of 319 votes to 160. That is an indication that the Government fully have the authority of the House for wishing to ensure that the passage of the Bill can be concluded.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way so soon. Has he not forgotten one major feature in the catalogue of major features of the Single European Act? Does not clause 3(4) of the Bill certify that additional powers will be given to the European Assembly or Parliament? Am I right in thinking that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention that during his brief resume?

Mr. Biffen: Obviously, the resume was brief because we are operating within a three-hour debate as provided by the Standing Orders. The number of hon. Members present shows that many others wish to speak in the debate besides me.
Progress on the Bill has, however, been slow. Five hours were spent in Committee on the Floor of the House on 16 June, a further eight hours on 26 June, and five hours on 27 June. Yet those 18 hours of debate have concluded our proceedings on only three groups of amendments. We have barely started the fourth. I believe that progress could have been quicker without impairing our consideration of the Bill.
That has been taken into account in the timetable motion in my name which would provide for two hours to complete the Committee stage of the Bill and a further one hour for the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Max Madden: In the proceedings to which the Leader of the House has just referred did the Government at any stage seek to make progress? If they did not, can the right hon. Gentleman recall any precedent of a Government who did not seek progress at any stage, nevertheless tabling a guillotine motion?

Mr. Biffen: Yes, the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. Indeed, the motion was set down for debate in the belief that there was no voluntary agreement which would satisfy those who most strongly seek to resist the passage of the Bill.
At this point, I should deal with the point raised on Friday by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), the shadow Leader of the House,

who asked for an example of a guillotine motion debated outside prime time. On 21 May 1968, the Labour Government moved and passed a timetable motion on the Finance Bill in a debate which began at 10.27 pm. In April 1970, when the right hon. Gentleman was deputy Leader of the House, a debate on the timetable motion on the Ports Bill began at 10.12 pm. Finally, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in July 1976 the House had three debates on timetable motions in succession. The last of these began at 10.50 pm and provided timetables for two Bills, the Rent (Agriculture) Bill and the Education Bill.
I would not wish to justify the debate on a timetable motion at this time merely on the grounds of those precedents. I believe that taking this debate now is a way of causing the minimum disturbance to the programme already given to the House since it is the time previously set aside for the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As my right hon. Friend has said that in allocating two hours for the Committee stage of the Bill he has taken into account the important issues to be discussed, and as he knows that we must discuss the European monetary system, harmonisation of VAT, additional powers to the Commission, the reform of the common agricultural policy and a commitment to European union, how much time in particular does he think should be allocated to each subject within that two hours?

Mr. Biffen: I may be able to provide the most happy answer to my hon. Friend when I deal with the amendment that stands in his name. Earlier I mentioned that there were various problems relating to constitutional Bills. In part that arises from their being taken on the Floor of the House where they must compete with other Bills and other subjects for debate when time is being allotted.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The rumour going round the House at the moment is that the last substantive business, the Whip business, to be put before the House during this Session will be on 18 July. Does that not mean that there is plenty of time for a proper debate on this subject? My right hon. Friend is suggesting that he will take up my hon. Friend's amendment which offers five hours of debate. That is, five hours for the six important subjects that my hon. Friend has put forward. Is that not scandalous?

Mr. Biffen: In this instance the word scandal is on the lips of the speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sorry, on the lips of the parliamentary oracle. If my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North is talking of the House rising on 18 July, I hope that he will not have to pay for so much optimism.
Constitutional Bills often attract disparate forms of opposition, and the usual understandings to provide an adequate and ordered debate under voluntary arrangements are that much more difficult to conclude. Inevitably, this renders constitutional Bills particularly vulnerable to timetable motions. It has been so on this occasion.
Since 1966, six constitutional Bills have been timetabled. These were the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill in 1969, the European Communities Bill in 1972, the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill in 1979, the European Assembly Elections Bill in 1978, to which I have already referred, and the Northern Ireland Bill 1982. All were taken on the Floor


of the House and all save the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill were subject to sustained opposition which fell outside the operation of the usual channels.

Sir Russell Johnston: If indeed there is an intrinsic tendency for constitutional Bills to require timetabling, why did the Leader of the House not act sensibly at the outset and seek through the usual channels to negotiate a timetable which would have led to a proper, ordered debate from beginning to end?

Mr. Biffen: One always travels hopefully in these matters, even if the negotiations are through intrinsically, unusual channels.
I turn now to the amendments to the motion which have been selected for debate. Amendments (c) and (e) in the names of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues would together provide for a further 15 hours consideration of the Bill, and a six-hour Third Reading debate to be taken on a different day.
It will come as no surprise to the House to hear that I cannot recommend the acceptance of these amendments. Not only would they provide more time than we can afford for concluding the passage of this Bill, but they would do so in a far from constructive way. In particular, the lack of any way of allocating time within the 15 hours proposed for Committee means that, if this amendment were accepted, we might spend all 15 hours in lengthy discussion on one or perhaps two groups of amendments, and at the end of that time we would still not have addressed at all the issues arising from the later amendments.
Amendment (b) in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and two other hon. Members would provide a further 10 hours for the remainder of the Committee stage and Third Reading of the Bill. In addition to this would be any time taken by Divisions. The terms of this amendment would at least ensure a structured debate on the remaining amendments to the Bill which have been selected but not yet fully considered. None the less, the amount of time recommended for debate, together with the amount of time that might be taken up by Divisions, would be excessive considering the length of time we have already spent on this Bill—important though it is.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Why does the Leader of the House keep referring to the amount of time already spent on the Bill as if that justified having insufficient time to deal with the remainder of the Bill? Does he realise that he is busily convincing people who think it reasonable to have a timetable and has not formed any reasonable assessment of how much time the Bill requires?

Mr. Biffen: One always travels in the hope that one can construct a reasonably free arrangement for the passage of a Bill. That has been essayed by my right hon. and hon. Friends and they have not met with success. I have to acknowledge that.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why was not the Bill taken through Thursday night?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman said, "Why was not the Bill taken through Thursday night?" I think that that

is an extraordinary form of tribal ritualism — that the House must sit through the night when there is no prospect of constructive progress of the Bill but, none the less, it has to be undertaken to justify the timetable motion.

Mr. Skinner: The events of Thursday might were not as the Leader of the House suggests. The Tory party Whips were running around the House of Commons, including the bar and the terrace, trying to find Tory Members who would go into the Chamber to provide them with 100 Members so the debate could be closed. The truth is that the Leader of the House did not have enough Common Market slaves to do the job, and that is why the guillotine has been introduced.

Mr. Biffen: The thought that the Whips are put around like a bunch of ferrets is always a charming one. I am extremely loth to disabuse the hon. Gentleman of his analogy, but I fear that it does not neatly correspond with the truth.
Finally, I turn to amendment (a) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and others. My hon. Friend has been a doughty opponent of the Bill, but the amendment shows that he is not one who would oppose the will of the majority of the House by undue delaying tactics. Moreover, the timetable which he proposes takes realistic account of the pressure on parliamentary time at this stage of the year. It would provide for five hours — one hour for outstanding amendments divided into five sets, the last hour of which might include any debate on Third Reading. That represents a framework within which all the remaining amendments can be considered, albeit briefly.

Mr. Marlow: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend anticipates that Members of the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench will speak on each group of amendments, how many Back-Bench Members does he think will get a chance to speak?

Mr. Biffen: That will depend on the length of Front Bench speeches. Given the high quality of Back Bench contributions throughout the debate so far, there will be a great incentive for my right hon. Friends to be commendably brief.
I recognise the concern that was expressed yesterday about the terms of the motion in my name. Following further discussions through the usual channels, and more widely, I can now say to the House that I am prepared to accept the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East.
In conclusion, I would ask the House to reflect that we are now in July. As I said earlier, and as has been said by right hon. and hon. Members throughout our consideration of this measure, these are important matters, but we have many other matters of significance to discuss before we rise for the summer recess. It is not an ignoble consideration to take into account the desire of the House to adjourn for the summer recess no later than early next month. [Interruption.] The best is yet to come. That objective has been made more difficult by the proceedings on this Bill. Time already taken cannot be recalled. Within the constraints that that implies, I believe that amendment (a) is a constructive and realistic step.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: rose—

Mr. Biffen: I commend to the House the motion in my name as it would be amended by that amendment.

Mr. Peter Shore: In spite of the levity and good humour with which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has regaled us, I must express in the stongest terms the deep objections which are felt not only by myself but by many hon. Members at the existence and content of the timetable motion and to the timing of this important debate at 10 o'clock tonight. I shall deal with the precedents for late night debates on guillotines a little later. We shall not he bought off with the sop which the Leader has contemptuously offered the House in the adoption of the five-hour debate which his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) put down in amendment form.
I agree with the Leader of the House on just one point. the European Communities (Amendment) Bill is not just another Bill relating to our domestic affairs. It is not a Bill which, however objectionable to the Opposition and others and however truncated the debate on it, is still capable of repeal and replacement in a subsequent Parliament when a different party will occupy the Treasury Bench. It is not even what might he described as a domestic constitutional Bill, such as the Bill abolishing the metropolitan counties or the Bill on devolution for Scotland and Wales, for they, too, are capable of restoration or repeal in a subsequent Parliament.
What is special about the Bill is that it gives legislative effect to a treaty concluded with other nations — the member states of the EEC — and upon whose institutions it confers additional legislative powers. Once passed, this measure cannot be repealed by a subsequent Parliament, unless that Parliament is prepared to tear up the underlying treaty itself — a special dimension of difficulty which I do not believe many Conservative Members have even given serious thought to.
Moreover, it is a Bill that directly affects the power of Parliament. That point has been drawn to our attention by the House of Commons Select Committee on the European Communities and, most recently, on 6 May by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities. The House of Lords concludes:
The powers of the United Kingdom Parliament will be weakened by the Single European Act. The Committee draws this important fact to the special attention of the House.
The powers of the United Kingdom Parliament will he weakened in two principal ways: first, because, as a result of amendments to the Rome treaty, qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers will be substituted for unanimity voting in five important articles of the Rome treaty and, secondly, because it introduces the new so-called "co-operation" procedure between the European Assembly and the Council of Ministers which will remove the national veto from a wide range of Council decisions and permit the Council to reject amendments by the European Assembly only if the Council itself is unanimous. Whereas previously there has existed a national veto on all the decisions of the Council of Ministers, henceforth the Council can only reject in large parts of the treaty the revised proposals from the European Assembly by unanimity.
The veto power in the Council of Ministers has been the central defence of British national interests. During the referendum campaign in 1975, the then Government,

supported by the Conservative Opposition, sought to comfort the sceptical British electorate with this categorical statement — I quote from the document "Britain's New Deal in Europe"—
no important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.
The top decision-making body in the Market is the Council of Ministers which is composed of senior Ministers representing each of the nine member governments … it is the Council of Ministers and not the market officials who take important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the members of the Council agree. The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interest.
How do the Government expect and justify this departure and change? It would be refreshingly honest if they had admitted in the first place that a change was taking place and rested their case on what they clearly believe in —the advantage of removing the veto in many areas of the treaty, especially in all the provisions making for a single European market. But that is not the argument that they deploy.
On 23 April, on Second Reading, the Foreign Secretary brazenly claimed:
The one thing that is clear is that the Luxembourg compromise as I have described it is in no way affected one way or the other by the Single European Act." —[Official Report, 23 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 321.]
In rebuttal, I content myself with this passage from the House of Lords Select Committee:
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has said that the veto under the Luxembourg compromise is still available to be invoked where necessary. It must however he open to question whether it would, or even could, be invoked in circumstances where the Commission, the majority of the European Parliament, and a qualified majority of Member States were united against the United Kingdom.
That judgment by the Select Committee in the House of Lords is repeated in almost identical terms in the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in this House.

Mr. William Cash: As a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we made recommendations to withdraw to the House and to Westminster some vital scrutiny improvements which could be made, which would effectively deal with many of the problems to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred and which would not engage us in a re-run of the events of 1972.

Mr. Shore: This is not matter of scrutiny. We are considering a shift of power, the removal of the power of veto and the precise breach of the undertakings given to honour and maintain the Luxembourg compromise.
Furthermore, as the Foreign Secretary said, the Luxembourg compromise is not a provision of the treaty. It can be — and has been — overridden and it will certainly be overridden when the new co-operation procedure permits it to happen.
The other defences against the charge that both the Council of Ministers has been weakened as a whole and that the national veto within it has been similarly weakened, were deployed by the Minister of State on 26 June. Her defence was twofold: first, that it was unlikely that the European Assembly would be in a position to do much damage since it needed an absolute majority of its members to adopt an amendment to the Council of Ministers common position. There will be many occasions


when it will find its decisions much more interesting in future than they have been in the past. We can confidently expect that there will be far more absolute majority voting decisions in the European Assembly in the future, than there have been in the past.
Secondly— —

Mr. Allan Rogers: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Shore: I will give way when I have completed my second point.
The Minister of State's second defence was her naive and misleading assertion:
The power of the Council as the decision-taking body in the Community remains as before. The Council will have the last word on all decisions." — [Official Report, 26 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 532.]
However, the hon. Lady omitted the crucial fact that the last word was not in future to be the national veto but the highly improbable unanimous rejection of the Euro-Assembly's amendments by the whole 12 members of the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Rogers: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the European Assembly's standing orders in relation to the acceptance of amendments is laid down by the Assembly itself? The Council of Ministers, in whatever position it operates, cannot lay down the procedure of the Parliament. That is laid down by the bureau to the Parliament and accepted by it. If the Council of Ministers wishes to alter the rules of procedure it can do so.

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has direct experience of that Assembly and he has made an additional valid point.
Irrespective of that, I believe that what I have said is right. There will be a greater interest in turning out to vote in the Assembly because the power of the Assembly has been enhanced.
In addition, there is a commitment in the Single European Act to complete the free and frontierless internal market by the end of 1992, including Commission programme reports by the end of 1988 and 1990. If, by the end of 1992, the Commission is not satisfied, it will be able to draw up an inventory of relevant national laws not yet harmonised and submit appropriate proposals.
I have not even mentioned the extension of the Treaty into such areas as high technology, transport, environment and foreign policy. But I have said enough to establish that the content of the Bill and the treaty changes which it embodies are of a kind that merit, at the very least, deep and serious debate and cross-examination in this House.
One might have expected, therefore, that the Government would have responded with equal seriousness and adequate time would have been allotted to the Bill's Committee stage. Instead, the Government have responded first with deception — the pretence that the Bill is a minor, piffling matter—and secondly with an arrogant and sustained attempt to bulldoze it through the House in the minimum time. We have had precisely three days of debate. Since the Government have not seen fit to move a single closure, and since the subject matter of the treaty changes is both complex and important, it is hardly surprising that only the first three groups of amendments have so far been dealt with.
At the end of business last Friday, a further six groups of amendments remained, including such major matters as

tax harmonisation, monetary union and foreign policy coordination. We were then treated to the astonishing announcement from the Lord Privy Seal, that it was the Government's intention to introduce a timetable motion to limit further debate, and quite remarkably, that it would be taken not in prime time but after 10 pm tonight.
Like the Lord Privy Seal, I have looked at the precedents. While it is true that guillotine motions have occasionally been moved after 10 pm, it is certainly not the case that any constitutional measure or any measure deemed important enough to be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House has ever been treated in this way. Yesterday, the Government's insolence and arrogance was taken a long step forward with the announcement that the remaining timetable stage of the Bill would be concluded in just three hours: two hours for the Committee stage, and one hour for Third Reading.

Mr. Budgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to deal with the last argument of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal? My right hon. Friend would not give way to me, but I noticed that there was some concern in the House. My right hon. Friend said that he was very short of time this session. However, many of us who recollect that the Shops Bill was defeated, and who realise that it would have taken a very long time on the Floor of the House, find that rather difficult to understand. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has had some discussions with my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, and I wonder whether he would care to comment on my right hon. Friend's assertions.

Mr. Shore: I simply assumed that the Lord Privy Seal was being untypically vulgar and populist in his appeal to hon. Members' baser instincts to go on holiday at the earliest possible moment.
Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I pointed out yesterday that this derisory timetable would not even allow for votes to be taken on outstanding matters, let alone for any room for debate to be held. I say again, that substantially the same objection must apply to the additional two hours that the amendment of the right hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) requires, and which the Lord Privy Seal has seen fit to accept.
This is not just a party matter, but a matter for the House; conscious that it is dealing here with the rights of the British people. My own instinct and belief is that we should reject the timetable motion all together. But at the very least, I strongly urge hon. Members to support our amendments, which will at least allow minimum debating time for these major and outstanding issues.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move amendment (a), in (1), leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert:
'the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at such times after the start as are shown in the following Table ("the start" for this purpose being the time when the House next resolves itself into a Committee on the Bill):

TABLE


Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


Amendment No. 7
1 hour


Amendment No. 9
2 hours


Amendments Nos. 11 and 14
3 hours

Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


Amendments Nos. 47 and 22, the remainder of Clause No. 1, Clause No.2, and Clause No. 3 to the end of subsection (3).
4 hours


Amendment No. 46 and remaining proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading
5 hours,

I should make it clear that, although the time proposed for these vital issues in my amendments is pathetically inadequate. I strongly feel that it is desperately important that the House should at least have a minimal amount of time in which to discuss these major issues and to vote on them. If we had approved the original motion for two hours on the lot, without any time for votes on those vital issues, it would have come back to haunt us in the years to come.

Whether hon. Members support or oppose the Bill, they all agree that the Bill is very important. It will radically change our constitution. It will mean that a whole flood of regulations is applied in Britain whether or not the Government want those regulations. It will also mean that things will be decided or dropped by the European Assembly, when it previously did not have the power to do that. If we care about democracy at all, we should realise that nothing could undermine it more than the realisation of our constituents that we are powerless to do anything about the issues raised by business men or constitutents, and—more importantly—that we did not even have the time to vote on the original principle. For that reason, if for no other, I am grateful for the fact that the Government have at least given us the opportunity to vote for or against these massive, fundamental constitutional proposals.

The second reason why I am glad that the amendment has been accepted is that this would have been an appalling precedent for any future Government. I do not live in fear of what any of the Opposition parties may do, because I believe that deep down they are still committed to the democratic way of life and that they are sincere about the views that they hold. However, if we had approved a motion relating to a Bill that is of major constitutional importance that did not allow time for votes on major issues, a future extreme Government would have been able to come to the House and throw this legislation in our faces and say, "This is what you did in 1986. We are only doing what you did." For that reason, if for no other, it is important that the Government have made this minor concession, for which I am grateful. This is the first time that a guillotine motion has been amended for 25 years. That, therefore, is something.

There are six vital issues to be considered, upon one of which I hope there will be time to divide the House. It relates to the important issue that many new articles are to be incorporated in the treaty upon which decisions will not be taken by the Council of Ministers. They will be interpreted by the European Court. Some hon. Members believe that it is right that our VAT system should be harmonised with Europe. The Commission's view is that that is vital if the internal market is to be completed. However, other hon. Members think that it would be unfair if we were to harmonise VAT and then to levy VAT on such items as children's shoes, gas and electricity. I do not believe that hon. Members appreciate that decisions on the new articles that are to be incorporated in the treaty

will not be taken by the Council of Ministers, or by Parliament. They will be taken by the European Court, on a proposition from the European Commission.

I do not believe, either, that hon. Members fully realise what is involved in the additional powers that are to be given to the Commission. Some hon. Members think that what is wrong with the Common Market is that the Commission is not strong enough, because it does not have the power to overrule the Council of Ministers or member states if it is thought that the treaty is not being applied. Other hon. Members think that the Commission is too powerful and that it is wrong that it should be spending money when it has no legal authority to do so. How wrong it would be if hon. Members did not express a view.

On the veto, hon. Members know that the Luxembourg compromise is a load of nonsense. This country used it only once, on prices for agricultural products, and then it was overturned by a majority vote. The real issue is the veto. Therefore this issue should be examined very carefully. Hon. Members will shortly be receiving letters from their constituents about the flood of harmonisation directives that Lord Cockfield and his friends intend to introduce. Reference has already been made today to the harmonisation of MOT tests, which will result in ore costly and more difficult MOT tests. Very few of our constituents believe that this House does not have the power to decide what kind of MOT test this country should apply and what fee should be charged. However, that will be decided on a majority vote.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my hon. Friend accept that it might be in the national interest if a European directive resulted in the vehicles on our roads being in a more roadworthy condition?

Mr. Taylor: We cannot go into the merits of this matter on a guillotine motion, but surely my hon. Friend accepts that the right of the Commission or the council to impose, by a majority vote, that kind of decision on this House is something to which we should say yes or no. If the original motion stands, vital issues, such as handing over power to the Common Market, will be decided without this House having expressed an opinion upon them.
On European union, if the motion stands in its original form, the House of Commons will not have even the right to vote on whether European union is good or bad. Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) have consistently and sincerely put forward the view that there should be a federal Europe, or a united states of Europe, and that decision-making powers should be handed over to it. That is a fair point of view, which is held sincerely by certain hon. Members.

Sir John Farr: Is my hon. Friend saying that we could be subject to a directive from Europe relating to the content of the programmes put out by the BBC and the ITV?

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Yes, indeed. Hon. Members should realise that this directive exists today. The Government have said that they are opposed to it, the BBC has said that it is opposed to it, and the 113A has said that it thinks it is wrong. It is one of the majority voting directives. There is a whole flood of them. I hope hon. Members will appreciate that what we are deciding is a big thing. It will mean a flood, and such things as MOT test, the content


of television programmes and a whole range of things will be decided by majority vote. Even though our Ministers and Members of Parliament vote against by 630 to nothing, it will not make the slightest difference.
If we are going to make any sense of democracy in the House, it is crucial that we either agree to give this new power to Europe or say that we will not do it.
What are the views of the House on whether we want to give powers to the Commission to bring forward a European union? That is one of the amendments. If the motion stands in its original form, we will not even have a chance to vote yes or no. I have always understood that at the end of guillotines we have votes on all the outstanding amendments, but this motion does not allow that. It says that we will not even have votes on the outstanding amendments.
Then there is the question of the environment and whether polluters should pay, which is a vital issue; and the question of the European monetary system and extra powers for the European assembly. I am surprised that the Government have even suggested this. It would be criminal and an abrogation of our duties as Members of Parliament if we were to agree to a Bill to hand over these powers without even having the right to say whether we support or oppose it.
The main reason why I move the amendment—and I am very glad to have had enormous support from my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), who made strong representations, as did other of my hon. Friends—is that we have an absolute obligation to our constituents for the power given to us. Some of us—it seems the majority—think it is right to hand over a lot of that power to Europe. Many Members take the view that it is right that a major area of decision should be undertaken by majority voting in the Common Market. I feel that it is our duty to go into the division Lobbies and say whether we, as representatives of the people, think that it is a good thing or a bad thing.
There are many issues that divide all of us in the House. The one thing we must never run away from is taking the responsibility to say that we agree or do not agree.
I appeal to those who may think that the amendment is a silly one because it allows for only a pathetically limited debate to understand that, if we pass the amendment, it means that every Member of the House will have to decide whether we want to give more powers to the European assembly, whether we want to surrender the veto in a big way, whether we want to support the European union, whether we believe in the harmonisation of VAT and excise duties and whether we want to give more powers of implementation to the Commission. These are things that we cannot run away from.
While I accept that many people have fought the Bill tooth and nail, and rightly so in their view, I hope that they will accept that at least, if we pass this little amendment, we will have the right to give our approval or our disapproval to what is one of the major constitutional issues of our time, on which I accept that there are differing views in the House.
I hope that, if the guillotine motion does anything at all, it will encourage Members to read the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and the Single European Act. One of the tragedies is that, if what has happened here had happened in the republic of South Africa, I fancy there

would have been five "Panorama" programmes and two special "Newsnight" programmes to talk about what was happening to democracy. What is happening is enormous. I hope that Members will think carefully about whether this is something to which they would want to add their names. More important, I hope that they will bear in mind what is in the Bill when, at a later stage, our constituents . start complaining that we have thrown away power on issues that they think are important and vital.
For these reasons, I thank the Leader of the House for having accepted the amendment which, although it does not offer the opportunity for proper debate, at least gives Members of the House of Commons the chance to say whether we agree or disagree to a massive constitutional change and a massive handing over of powers to another body in Europe.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: So it has happened again. Fourteen years ago, when it was proposed to this House that it should make a comprehensive resignation of its traditional constitutional powers and transfer them to the institutions of the European Economic Community, the House had to be forced to do it by means of a guillotine motion. Now, in 1986, when it is proposed that that transfer of powers should be further enlarged, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has demonstrated, and that we should accept, by writing into an Act of Parliament, the principle of political union as the objective of our membership of the EEC, the Government come forward to coerce the House of Commons to pass that legislation by means of a guillotine motion.
It is a cruel irony that this act is committed to the hands of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). The House knows, and the country knows, the right hon. Gentleman's view of British membership of the European Economic Community. Through all his years in office he has preserved his honour on this subject in the sense that by no word or gesture has he conveyed to anyone approval of the decision that was taken in 1972. He has given no one any reason for mistaking where his heart and where his mind lay upon this subject. Yet it falls to him, by cruel chance, to propose that the House of Commons should be guillotined in order to pass this further instalment of abnegation.
The right hon. Gentleman, in a courteous and generous reply to me last Friday, sought to find some differentiation. He said:
perhaps I have a different recollection of the arithmetic.
That was a different recollection from mine. He continued:
The size of the majority on the Second Reading of this Bill is in no way related to that on the Second Reading of the European Communities Bill." — [Official Report, 27 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 666.]
Indeed, on the Second Reading of this Bill the majority in favour was far larger than the niggardly eight by which the Second Reading of the European Communities Bill was carried on 17 February 1972, or the even more niggardly figure of four to which the Government majority fell at one point in Committee.
The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North is not unaware of another important numerical consideration. Three days have been allotted so far to the Committee on the Floor of the House on this Bill. The second and third


days were last Thursday and Friday. If the Government had commanded adequate support in the House for the Bill, with the availability of the whole of the sitting on Thursday and the whole of the sitting on Friday, and the use of the powers of curtailing debate that are available under the closure procedure, there would have been no difficulty in making substantial and even decisive progress before the House rose on Friday. We should be almost as near to the termination of proceedings had that been so as we shall be brought to by the passing of this guillotine motion.
The fact is that the Government do not enjoy sufficient support on their own Benches for the Bill to be able to carry it through in Committee in the House of Commons by means of the ordinary resources at their disposal. On the very day, 1 July, on which the United Kingdom assumes the so-called presidency of the European Economic Community, the Government are faced with the fact that they do not enjoy adequate support, in a House in which they have a huge majority, for the passage by ordinary means of this piece of legislation.
I wonder whether the Government and the Foreign Secretary have been candid with what they call their partners in the European Economic Community. I wonder whether they have told that, in the midst of the euphoria for a further move towards political union in Europe, that the mood and mind not only of the public of the United Kingdom remain deeply entrenched against membership, let alone the extension of its implications, but that a Government commanding so imposing a majority in the House of Commons cannot, by ordinary means, pass through Parliament a Bill which would embody in the law of this country the terms of the treaty that has been made.
I hope that that has been made clear to the European Community. I hope that the Government have been candid, for they have a duty to be candid. They have a duty on behalf of the House and the people of this country to declare that, in this respect, there is a deep difference between the attitude and mind of the public of Britain and that of the rest of the Community, without even the exception of Denmark. A deep repugnance is felt in the country and the House to the resignation of our ancestral rights and freedoms. It is something to which there is no parallel in Europe, and that has been demonstrated by the progress of the Bill. It is demonstrated by the motion that is before the House tonight. The Government ought to be candid in the face of Europe about the true situation and mind of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), in a speech which delighted the House last Friday, drew attention to a curious anomaly which had engaged his notice, namely, that the Prime Minister was, to all appearances, strongly opposed to the step which we are invited to embody in United Kingdom legislation. The Prime Minister had stated publicly and repeatedly that no such treaty was necessary, and that for the purposes and interests of the United Kingdom in the Common Market no such legislation as this to embody that treaty would be called for. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Bolsover pointed out, she went along and signed.
The hon. Gentleman did not pursue his reflections into the reasons for that difference, I think that it is a real difference. I do not think that this is just an exhibition of insincerity and contortion. I think that it is a real difference between the instincts and motives of the right

hon. Lady and the actions that are extorted from her in the circumstances in which she finds herself, not only in Europe, but specifically and particularly in Europe.
I think that this evening it is right that those differences should be mentioned on the Floor of the House if we are to be forced into passing the means of compulsorily embodying this treaty in the law of the United Kingdom.
Eighteen months ago there was a remarkable review in the Sunday Telegraph by Sir Anthony Parsons, who has not been a stranger to the present Administration, of a book by Sir Nicholas Henderson. In that book Sir Nicholas Henderson said:
a severe strain would be imposed on the code of loyal service to political masters if a future Government were to adopt an extremely radical policy, such as withdrawal from the European Community".
I pause there for a moment because I noted with interest this evening the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney who did not quote from the same 1975 referendum document as he quoted other phrases from. He made the remarkable assertion that if the result of the referendum were yes, British membership of the European Community would depend upon the continued consent of Parliament. In other words, it was an assertion that this House retained, and retains, the right, of course by the proper international steps taken in consequence on behalf of this country by a Government, to withdraw, if need be, from the commitments which have been created by our entry into the treaty of Brussels and by our signature to the Single European Act. But this is a digression.
Sir Anthony Parsons continued and concluded:
I would go further. I think that, if the broad bipartisanship of the past 40 years"—
that is 1946 to 1986—
broke down in such a way, many officials in the higher reaches of the Foreign Office would find it impossible conscientiously to implement the new policies and the Government would be obliged to recruit political loyalists in order to carry out its will.
That is a description of the prison which has been constructed and in which the Prime Minister finds that her instincts and her will are "cribb'd, cabin'd and confin'd."
It is under those pressures and under that kind of blackmail and dictation that the House finds itself being compelled, at the gunpoint of a guillotine, to pass the legislation consequent upon the Single European Act. It is blackmail, and it is blackmail from a quarter from which the House ought not to accept blackmail. It is a blackmail imposed by those who are not, as we are, the elected representatives of the people of this country, and it is a blackmail and a pressure to which successive British Governments, during the 40 years of bipartisanship, have been subject. If we are to do so, we bow the neck again to the yoke tonight, it is well that we should understand what we are doing. As for myself, I will have none of it.

Sir Edward du Cann: The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) is entirely right. The House should not be treated in this way. This is a sad and a wretched occasion. While I very much regret that we shall be taking precious hours tonight to debate the guillotine motion instead of the far-reaching proposals in the Bill, I regret even more its proposal. I agree with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who made an admirable speech This is a sad, bad and unnecessary measure and it should not be proceeded with.
Like almost every other right hon. and hon. Member, I have voted over the years in favour of guillotine motions when my party in government has invited me to do so, and like almost every other right hon. and hon. Member I have voted against guillotine motions when my party out of government has invited me to do that.
In the first instance I have always felt uncomfortable, and I dare say that that is a shared feeling too. That is partly because delay is one of few legitimate devices, weapons, courses of conduct, open to the objector. One loyally follows the Whip, of course, because we are all elected here as party men, yet none of us was elected, was he, as a simple sycophant? We were sent here, above all, to use the capacity of judgment. That is our constitutional duty, as the right hon. Member for South Down suggested. A responsible democratic system must always allow a fair time for argument about the proposals of the Government of the day. Patience is the hallmark of wise leadership in a democracy, just as intolerance is the badge of the dictator. When we abandon reason — that is to say, Discussion—as the arbiter of issues, we are surely on a slippery slope away from our democratic tradition.
There is another point. This Parliament, so it is said, is the forum of the nation. Through our discussions in this place we interest popular opinion, awaken it and involve our fellow citizens in the decision-making process. That is our duty, and I think many of us would say our pride. But not in respect of this measure.
Why are the Government so keen, I wonder, to curtail discussion on the measure— for a second time in four days. Admittedly the Government may say that they have been provoked by lengthy speeches on occasion, but what a trivial provocation that is, in truth. There are always pressures on the Government's timetable in July, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House indicated, but what is one day in the scheme of things—one day of the 250 on which we sit?
Also, we have not even troubled to discuss this far-reaching treaty, which was signed by a junior Minister and was not made available promptly for inspection in the Library of the House. I hope that discussion is not being truncated because some members of the Government are worried that if the measure's full implications were more widely comprehended, they would cause public anxieties which had better lie dormant. If the case for the Bill is so good, let it be argued with conviction in the Chamber of the House. If the arguments are so persuasive, they will prevail. It must be wrong — to use a footballing metaphor—for time to be blown by an umpire who is also a combatant early in the first half of the discussion. We should be ashamed of government by stealth and lawmaking by fudging.
As the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar reminded us, when the great debates of the 1970s took place in Parliament and in the country, before the referendum and the votes in the House of Commons, the advocates of Britain's signature to the treaty of Rome—no doubt sincerely — gave us clear assurances, for example, that there would be no derogation of the United Kingdom's national sovereignty, that Parliament would retain all its powers and that the courts would retain their powers.
What is the reality, a little more than a decade later? European law is increasingly taking primacy over United

Kingdom law. Look at the way in which the Government scuttled, a fortnight ago, just one day before a decision on social matters was promulgated in the European Court. Now the right of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Parliament to decide taxation levels is to be subordinated to the prospect of harmonisation, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) spoke, in a remarkable and important speech.
The zero rate of taxation is already under challenge in the European Court. Most nations already have higher top VAT rates than does the United Kingdom. A vote for this Bill is a vote for higher VAT rates. I remember so well the late Patrick Hutber's law that improvement almost invariably means deterioration. One might argue that harmonisation in tax matters means always increasing tax rates. More money for an administration whose poor housekeeping is a scandal is the prospect in this Bill. Would that we had a European Public Accounts Committee or a departmental Select Committee to expose it.
The Bill provides for us to take further giant strides towards an integrated Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East said, how we will achieve that happy objective—if that is what it is—is not disclosed. It reminds me of the time of the south sea bubble, when promoters raised money for an enterprise, the purposes of which were to be secret, but which was such a good enterprise that it must be worth raising the cash for it. If someone tried to do that in the City of London today, he would be sent to prison.
So the Bill means, inevitably, a lesser role for our Parliament. Even the veto to protect our vital national interests is at risk, and power will increasingly rest with the Council of Ministers, where the United Kingdom, with a triviality of votes, can easily be outvoted by any combination of nations. Power will also rest increasingly with the bureaucracy. That is the certain prospect. The comments of the right hon. Member for South Down, deserve emphasis: with all the power that we can command, let it be said that the balance of power is to shift. That is what that Bill means.

Mr. Peter Fry: Does not the way in which the Community has been enlarged, and may be enlarged in future, move further and further away from our country and Parliament our control over our own affairs? More and more, we shall be subject to peoples who are perhaps not yet members of the Community.

Sir E. du Cann: That is a wise observation. My hon. Friend raises the question whether a constitution that was devised for an old situation is any longer adequate for an entirely new one.
Above all else, the Bill proves that the old assurances upon which our people in the country have relied are now unreliable and false.
Is two hours enough for a sober and careful examination of the most significant issues raised by the Bill —issues with the deepest constitutional implications and prospects? Is five hours, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East enough? I do not know. However, I do know that one cannot timetable free discussion among free men, and that one should not attempt, on such affairs, to do so. These are matters that we should take adequate time to discuss.
Every previous guillotine debate in which I have participated in past years has been wholly different in


character from this. There has always been a lengthy Committee stage. There have always been closures. There has always been what my right hon. Friend, in his opening speech, called a pertinacious Opposition. That has not been so in this case.
All the other guillotine debates have been, basically, about party matters such as nationalisation and denationalization — the great domestic divides between the two sides of the House. The present matter is wholly different in character, scope, style and implication. The situation with which we are now dealing is unprecedented because, as the right hon. Member for South Down has so clearly shown, the constitutional issues are fundamental.
The House should unite to reject the motion. This affair is above party. It is above the personal convenience of a day's holiday more or less. I do not argue how the matter should be decided, but I argue that our Parliament should discuss it thoroughly and encourage the nation similarly. I do not believe that such a proposal can reasonably be contradicted by any right hon. or hon. Member in any part of the House. I hope that the motion will be triumphantly rejected tonight.

Mr. Michael Foot: The Leader of the House referred at the beginning of his speech and later on to some previous guillotine motion debates. I hope that I will not be thought arrogant if I say that I am as great an authority on guillotines as almost any hon. Member in the House. I believe that I have participated in as many guillotine debates as anyone.
I was somewhat disturbed—although I have heard it from the Liberal and other Benches before—to hear the proposition that the right way to deal with these matters is to have timetable motions for all measures before they are introduced. I am bitterly opposed to any such proposition, even though I know that, as the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) said, it is quite often the case that some Government supporters support guillotines whereas those who oppose a Government tend to oppose them. However, I am certainly opposed to the idea of introducing regular timetables for all Bills. If anyone is seeking an easy and simple way to kill off what remains of the debating vitality of the House of Commons, I recommend the idea of permanent timetables, which would also injure proper debate in the House as a whole.

Sir Russell Johnston: How much debating vitality does the right hon. Gentleman think would be left for the Bill even with the acceptance of the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)?

Mr. Foot: We have had some vitality up to now, although the Government are trying to kill it off. The Liberal party, on the other hand, would have killed off that vitality from the beginning. The idea of permanent guillotines, permanent timetables or other permanent arrangements for the allocation of time is not a good recommendation for debate. Such an arrangement would play straight into the hands of any Government, and it should be rejected.
I have no doubt that the Leader of the House has referred, in the usual polite way in which he always treats me, to certain occasions when I introduced guillotine motions, and I agree that I introduced quite a large

number on a certain occasion. But none of those instances have any relevance to this debate. The five measures in question were all manifesto commitments of the party to which I belonged and the Government whom I supported. If guillotines had not been introduced in those cases, there would not have been the remotest chance of those measures being translated into operation. All had passed through their Second Reading stages and had been the subject of substantial votes.
That cannot be said of the position today. Even had the Leader of the House not introduced this guillotine, he would have had a good chance —even though some of us would have opposed the measure strongly—of getting the Bill through. He cannot claim, therefore, that the situations are the same, and the excuse that he or others may seek to invoke—of comparing this with previous occasions — does not apply, and the right hon. Gentleman should not resort to such a comparison.
The House will agree that there must be different rules, with greater provision for discussion, for constitutional as opposed to other measures. That does not mean that guillotine motions can never be applied to constitutional measures. Indeed, had that been the case, some major constitutional measures of the century would never had been placed on the statute book. In the last resort, therefore, Governments have a right to resort to the guillotine to get through constitutional measures.
But Governments, especially when dealing with questions that come fresh to debate in the House, have an obligation to ensure the fullest possible debate on great constitutional issues. Thus, the first charge against the Government—as most people listening to today's debate will agree—is that they have sought to push through this measure as if it were a minor, trivial one, when every minute of the debate has proved that it is a major constitutional measure. The Leader of the House will agree with that proposition.

Mr. Biffen: indicated assent.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is a great constitutional measure. In that case, there cannot be any excuse for him — and we appreciate that he understands the House of Commons better than any other member of the Treasury Bench — tabling a motion saying in effect, that all debate on this great constitutional measure must be curtailed to a couple of hours, with an hour for Third Reading. Such a motion represents not a provision for debate but a denial of debate.

Mr. Eric Deakins: My right hon. Friend will agree that the crime is made more heinous by the fact that, unlike the examples to which he referred, the Government have no mandate from the British people for this measure. It was not mentioned in their 1983 manifesto.

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is right, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) showed not only that the Government do not have a mandate for it but what happened when various parties sought approval for Britain's continued membership of the Market in 1975. The British people had propositions put before them to win their support for the maintenance of our position in the EEC, some of which propositions are being denied by this Bill, and an attempt is being made to push it through without the British people knowing what is happening to them.
The case is aggravated not only by the breach of the undertakings given by all parties to the British people at the time of the referendum but by our subsequent experience. The British people, especially the British Parliament, like to say how pragmatic we can be and how we work things out in practice. During all our debates at the time of our entry I remember many pro-marketeers saying, "Let us see how we can work these things out. A proper scrutiny committee among other organisations will examine the legislation. Let us see how that works. It will help to safeguard against the perils that are being described." We have a Scrutiny Committee and nobody would deny that it has done excellent work. If it had not been for my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is Chairman of it, and other hon. Members who have given it huge amounts of their time, the dangers of our entry would have become even more apparent over the years. But if the Scrutiny Committee is asked to advise the House, occasionally one must take note of what it says, particularly when it refers to such a measure as this.
The second great charge against the Leader of the House is that he has brushed aside all the advice that he has received on this measure. The Select Committee on European Legislation said:
The arrival of the Single European Act demonstrates one inherent weakness of the current system (of scrutiny). The House had no opportunity to examine the Act until it had been agreed by the Member States, and even now can only accept or reject it as a whole through the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. As a scrutiny committee, we were never able to report on the Act, or on the Inter-Governmental Conference held in accordance with the Treaty in autumn 1985 which produced it. because both were outside our terms of reference. A similar situation has occurred from time to time in the budgetary affairs of the Community, when an Inter-Governmental Agreement has been used to supplement Community funds. Here again, the House was suddenly faced with a major development, almost without warning, and the terms of reference of the Committee meant that the document was not subject to scrutiny procedure.
This major constitutional measure, as the right hon. Gentleman has now been forced to acknowledge it, is not only being forced through in insufficient time but in opposition to the warnings given by our Scrutiny Committee.
I am not for a moment claiming that the operations of the Scrutiny Committee are a satisfactory substitute for the protection of the House. I never accepted the view that because the Scrutiny Committee examines this curious form of legislation, which arrives from the Assembly or the Council of Ministers—their methods of legislation are very different from ours, which is why it is so difficult to amalgamate the two methods by which the Assembly and the House work — it can successfully ensure that amalgamation. Despite that, what are we to say when a Scrutiny Committee had been set up to advise on these matters, its advice is brushed aside and a measure is rushed through in this ignominious way?
This will do great damage to the Government. I am sorry that it will also damage the Leader of the House, because he is far and away the best member of the Government. He is the only one who really seeks to understand what is happening in the House and who takes back faithful reports. No doubt that is why he has not been invited to participate in some of these inner sanctums which have been set up in recent weeks. If I could think

of any other compliment that would do him some damage I would be happy to pay it. That always comes easily to me.
I am deeply surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is a party to this. The only explanation is that he too has, perhaps, awakened to the fact that these proposals are far-reaching. Of course, if he tries to force through the scandal of a two-hour debate, that will be even worse. Even if, on the basis of accepting the amendment from his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) he forces that through, it will come back to haunt the Government and the right hon. Gentleman, because all the matters raised by the right hon. Member for Taunton and by all the other speakers, and the matters that will be raised in abbreviated future debates will be laid at the door of the Government.
When people discover that they will have to pay more in VAT because of some decision taken in Europe that this House had decided shall not be referrable to us, the Government's unpopularity will be multiplied manyfold. The wisest course for the Leader of the House is not only to accept the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Southend, East but to get up and recognise the force of this debate. Nobody listening to the debate can doubt that the British House of Commons is asserting its authority. The right hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members ought to pay

Sir Anthony Meyer: I shall not add to the discomfiture of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House by praising him, much as I should like to do so. I know about his underwhelming enthusiasm for the measure that we are debating and speak merely to support him.
These guillotine debates are as weary, stale, flat and unprofitable as most of our debates on the EEC. They are also as entirely predictable, and my own contribution will be entirely predictable. I make it primarily to show that not every speaker, even on the Government side, is so unrepresentative as to be hostile to the European Community.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) made a quite remarkable contribution to our debate when he suggested that there was something terrible about the idea that there exist in the Foreign Office senior civil servants who are so attached to traditional interests and to policies based on those interests that they would find extreme difficulty in serving a Government that abandoned those interests. It seemed to me that what he was rattling as a terrifying spectre in front of us was a totally admirable statement by senior civil servants that there are interests transcending their careers and the kind of blind obedience that the right hon. Gentleman would seek to force upon them that would require them not to serve a Government that went so far away from everything that has traditionally been in the interests of Britain.
As I said, my contribution is totally predictable. I support the guillotine motion. It seems clear from the debate so far and from the lengthy speeches made on both sides, that however much time the Government had allowed for the further consideration of the measure, progress would have remained imperceptible. At whatever stage the Government had decided to impose a timetable motion, there would have been the routine howls of protest.
The complaint was made, especially by Opposition Members, that at no stage did the Government seek to move a closure. To that I retort that on the few occasions when we managed to get as far as a vote, the number of objectors to the measure who took the trouble to turn up in the Division Lobby was ludicrously small. I have no hesitation whatever in following my right hon. Friend into the Division Lobby to try to get a move on with this Bill.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The first part of my speech will not be predictable. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) in his dogged determination of the cause of which he often speaks. I pay tribute to his internationalism. We have a happy augury of official representatives of foreign states in this building tomorrow. The point between us is the sound, philosophical and fundamental difference in how we express that internationalism. Some hon. Members express that internationalism by a wish for co-operation, which indicates that operations are parallel, by agreement and by consent. Some hon. Gentlemen believe that international accord can best be achieved by a pooling of legislative and judicial authority. That is what the Single European Act is all about. I do not think that the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West and I agree on that, but we might at least agree on the differences. I believe that the Single European Act seeks to do that, with serious consequences.
The Bill should consider the Single European Act, which contains 22 pages of small print and more than 50 amendments to the treaty of Rome. It is complex in the extreme, because it is legislation by reference and reference. A double take is necessary. Yet, despite that, the Government have not seen tit to publish a White Paper or guide. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum at the front of the Bill is as derisory as the motion before us tonight.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has said that the way in which the Government have gone about the Bill illustrates the politics of coercion. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) last week and repeated today by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). The Prime Minister has said that she does not want the Bill. I suggest to the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West that if one pursues the path of pooled legislation, pooled budgetary powers and a pooled judiciary, one ends up with the politics of coercion. That is what hon. Members are faced with. The Bill is not wanted by the Government, and they can only get it through by means of the motion before us.
I shall be a little less provocative perhaps, and turn to my role as Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent kindly referred. The Scrutiny Committee can only look and report. It does not have the power to act. If the House gives its power away, it will not have the power to act. There is a difference between an ability to see and an ability to act.
The present terms of reference of the Scrutiny Committee have not permitted it to give a summary of the Single European Act as it stands. The Committee was able to report on the Single European Act only in so far as it affected our duties on scrutiny. That is what we did in House of Commons paper No. 400. We also suggested that. if we were to discharge our duty to the House, we

should require slightly enlarged terms of reference. That was a unanimous decision. I am glad to see that it was unanimously endorsed by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.
As I am concerned with parliamentary scrutiny, I shall do something which I do not think has been done before in guillotine debates. I shall tell the House in some excruciating detail the groups of amendments which still remain to be debated. I hope to summarise—although not at too much length — the contents of the Single European Act.
The Committee is debating amendment No. 7, moved by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), which relates to article 17 of the Single European Act and new article 99 of the treaty of Rome. The article deals with the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and VAT, which could be imposed on food, fuel, hooks and a range of other activities. Many suspect that the unpopular VAT on building repairs, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced some time ago, was the result of letters from the Commission under the sixth VAT directive. If that is not the case, I invite the right hon. Gentleman to write to tell me so.
Under the timetable motion of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), one hour is to be spent on that vast range of fiscal activity. I suggest that the very minimum period would be two hours. If any hon. Member thinks that the time should be less, let him get up and say so.
The next amendment is amendment No. 9, which relates to article 20 of the Single European Act and new article 102A of the treaty. It deals with the vast subject of the obligation on the House to accept European monetary union and the European monetary system and to accept the convergence of policies and it provides for conferences on that subject to be called under article 23 by only one Government. In addition, there is to be a new article 70(1) of the treaty of Rome which says that directives relating to exchange policy shall be achieved by a "qualified majority". I can hardly credit that. 10 years ago, any Chancellor would have agreed, let alone contemplated, such a proposal. As hon. Members know, if there is a qualified majority, we can do nothing about a measure once it is accepted.
I should have thought that those matters required at least a two-hour debate. If any hon. Member thinks that they do not, let him say so. The motion of the hon. Member for Southend, East would give us an hour.
The guillotine motion does not provide for amendments Nos. 23 to 25, which are to do with the solemn declaration at Stuttgart which has 32 paragraphs and is published in full by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in House of Commons Paper 442. The measure also concerns European co-operation of a political character. Title III of the European Common Act and new article 30 has 10 paragraphs which set out the treaty form of European political co-operation. This group of amendments would provide the only means of debating that matter, but there is no time allocated to it. There will be six new treaty institutions relating to an obligation to consult on all matters of foreign affairs, at multilateral and bilateral levels. I should have thought that a two-hour debate on both topics would be the least anyone could expect. I should prefer double or treble that time, but I do not think that any Conservative Members could suggest that it be less than two hours.
The next amendment is amendment No. 11 which deals with article 25 of the single European Act and the new articles 130R. 130S and 130T of the treaty of Rome. It concerns the new scope of the treaty in relation to the environment. New article 130S says that if the Council of Ministers decides unanimously that certain things shall be decided by a qualified majority, it shall be so. I calculate that the motion of the hon. Member for Southend, East allows for a half-hour debate but I should have thought that two hours at least were needed to debate the environment, which is a huge topic and one on which the European Community is now claiming vires.
The next amendment is amendment No. 14, which concerns article 10 of the Single European Act and new article 145 of the Rome treaty. It deals with the important topic of providing the Commission with delegated powers. Many hon. Members might think that the Commission already has plenty of delegated powers but I have news —there are new delegated powers under new article 145 of the treaty. The hon. Member for Southend, East allocates half an hour to that matter. I should have thought that one hour at least would have been necessary.
The next group of amendments covers amendment 47 and relates to the Single European Act article 23 and to the Treaty of Rome, new article 130A, 130B, 130C. and 130D. These deal with what is called cohesion in the Community and they require reports on the future of the common agricultural policy, the social fund and the regional fund and their revision. I suggest that one hour on the CAP and half an hour on each of the other subjects is much too little time, but on my calculations we will have only a quarter of an hour on the lot, if we are lucky, under the motion of the hon. Member for Southend, East.
The next group of amendments contains amendment No. 22 which deals with the complete meaning of the preamble of the Treaty. As hon. Members will know, the preamble of the Treaty, while not being part of the Treaty, can be taken into account if there is any dispute as to its meaning. Therefore, the preamble — which I would recommend hon. Members to read if they have not already done so—will be taken into account by the European Court if their is any question as to whether we should be within the jurisdiction of the Treaty or not. If hon. Members read the preamble they will see its extensive terms. Half an hour would be far too short a time for that subject and the hon. Member for Southend, East gives about a quarter of an hour for that in his motion.
The next topic for debate would be clause stand part on clauses 1 and 2. We have debated these clauses already, but we have not entered into discussions on the complex machinery of the powers of the Commission and the Parliament and the expansion of the Court. That was discussed but the Court is being given a blank cheque to produce proposals as to how it can expand — not I hasten to add in powers—but in numbers. I would have thought that two hours on that point would have been reasonable. The Southend motion gives it half an hour.
The last amendment is amendment No. 46 in the name of the right hon. Member for South Down. The amendment covers a very important part of the Bill, clause 3(4), because it relates to the fact that the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 required an Act of Parliament if power was to be transferred to the European

Assembly. The mere fact that this is in the Bill shows that the Government acknowledge that power will be transferred.
The Third Reading will receive two hours when it should have three. My grand total is that some 16 hours 30 minutes or 17 hours of debate without Divisions would be needed. That is more than the total of 15 hours put down in the motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) which was rubbished by the Leader of the House. With Divisions, we would need about 20 hours to carry out the minimum timetable that I have suggested tonight. Instead of that, we are being asked to spend five hours, including Divisions.
Some people want to give powers away from the House. They have every right to say that, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West for expressing that view. However, have they got the power to prevent us from discussing whether we should give powers away? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn has said, once those powers have gone we will be told that we gave binding international treaties to that effect.
People in South Africa are struggling to obtain some form of democracy. Can it be that today we are giving ours away too lightly? My own charitable interpretation is that I do not think that the Government know what the Bill contains. They do not know the extent or implications of the Single European Act and by moving the guillotine motion tonight they are preventing people and Parliament from finding out what it contains.

Mr. Tony Marlow: A full House, late at night. No press present, with the media gone to bed. A shameful time to debate this shameful issue. That is not parliamentary hyperbole. This is the most important constitutional issue to he debated since I became a Member of Parliament. I believe that it is even more important than the European Communities Act. After that Act, we had a veto. Can we be sure that we have a veto now?
Almost every major provision in the Bill is more pregnant with significance than any two items of primary legislation, yet it is to he debated, including Divisions, in five short hours. No wonder that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House sits hunched in his seat. He is an honest man, and I imagine that he must feel sick at heart. I hope that we shall not have any more little jokes about the Front Bench making short speeches on major issues that merit a proper introduction.
For the past few weeks, the House and the country have been deeply concerned about the important and tragic events of South Africa. We might have some minimum control over those events, but we potentially have a great deal of control over this massive event. Yet we are not being allowed to have a proper debate on the issue.
The media have not taken the issue seriously at all. Is it because it is too complex, and people do not understand it? Or is it because the Government have such a massive majority that people believe that nothing can be done about it? When we had a referendum, it was about a common market and not about a united Europe. But despite that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) said, only last week there were major changes in our social legislation as a result of the


European Court. It was nothing to do with harmonising the internal market, or with the common market that we joined. It had everything to do with moving towards a united Europe.
Two or three short weeks ago, my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General made a statement reducing the burdens on small companies. Immediately afterwards he introduced some European legislation to increase the burdens on small companies. Was that necessary for the internal market? Of course we all want co-operation with Europe and a large, vital trading entity within Europe. But that does not mean that we have to harmonise everything: harmonise the arrangements for family leave, harmonise the health and safety regulations, and so on.
Harmonised and unified as we are, we are moving yet further towards this Single European Act. Of course, at first it was not called that. It was going to be called the Act of European union. But out of deference to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the title was changed. Many people have said that the Prime Minister is against this measure, because it is unnecessary. I believe that to be her position. We know that those Conservative Members who think about the issue are not in favour of it. On Friday we had an important debate, yet how many Conservative Members were here to vote it through? The answer is a mere 84 and two Tellers which amounts to 86 members out
What about the country? What does the country know about this issue? Does it know how important and significant this matter is? Have the Government shouted from the rooftops what they intend to do, and what the effects of the measure will be? If' the country knew about it, it would be, as it should be, against it. About the only person in favour of it is the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. She has always been in favour of a united Europe. But she does not for one moment represent the views of hon. Members on this matter.
Of course, people will say that this matter has nothing to do with a federal Europe and nothing to do with a united Europe. Really! Have they, or all of my hon. Friends, read the Bill? I apologise to my hon. Friends for saying this, but if they have not done so, they should read it and read it again. They should understand it. They should find out what is in it, and what it will do to the sovereignty of the House. They should find out what the Bill will do to our ability to control the fortunes of our country. This is dynamite, and important dynamite, and it should be read and digested.
The preamble says:
to transform relations as a whole among their States into a European Union".
The Bill is a vice in the hands of the European Court with which to squeeze the nation states of Europe into a union, which is often against their individual wills.
What about giving more power to the European Assembly? There, as anywhere else, issues will be debated on a political basis. Overriding all that, however, the Assembly will be concerned first and foremost with European unity, and the more power that it has the more European unity there will be.

Mr. John Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend not agree, however, that it would be preferable for a democratically elected body to have the power to propose amendments to Commission proposals, or would he perfer to be governed constantly by the proposals of a non-elected body such as the Commission?

Mr. Marlow: I say with due deference to my hon. Friend, whom I respect a great deal, that I believe that the conjunction of powers between the European Court, the European Assembly and the European Commission, all of which will be committed to a federal and united Europe, will lead to the negation rather than to the enhancement of democracy.
On majority voting, that already takes place on minor issues, but majority voting is to be extended. What effect will its extension have? It will move us towards European unity. We have 10 votes out of 78, or whatever the number is. The population of Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece, Portugal and Ireland — seven small countries—when put together is smaller than ours, but they have 28 votes. Because they have no influence elsewhere, the small countries of Europe want to move towards a united Europe. How can British Ministers agree to those small countries having nearly three times as many votes as we have? And, having given them those votes, how can British Ministers agree that they should be allowed to vote on issues that are of paramount importance to this country? Why does this parliamentary democracy and sovereign state intend to surrender its powers to a bureaucracy? How will that benefit the British people?
My hon. Friend the Minister of State patronised the Prime Minister the other day. She said that the Prime Minister did not like it at first, but she has learnt and that is why she changed her mind. I would not patronise the Prime Minister if I wanted to join the Cabinet and if I were the hot tip as the next lady in the Cabinet. However. I am sure that the Prime Minister is a forgiving lady. If she wants to get back into the Prime Minister's good books, I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that when she winds up the debate she should tell us what power and strength are still left to us, how committed she is to the veto —the Luxembourg compromise, or whatever we call it —and how we shall be able to sustain interests that are vital to this nation in the Council of Ministers. We have not yet been told, and it is high time that we were.
In our imperfect constitution, made more imperfect by the Bill, there is but one hope, but it is not here. Too many hon. Members are confused by the Bill and know little about it. They have been bullied by the Whips and they are not prepared to stand up on this issue. They are not concerned for the generations and centuries of history of this country and therefore do not feel that they should do what is right about it. But there is still the other place.
This Bill was not a manifesto commitment. It was not contained in the Queen's Speech. It is not about money. First and foremost, it is a constitutional issue. The other place has great power over constitutional issues. If we raise the ceiling tonight and make a noise, if we make people aware tonight of what this issue means, then let them wake up at the other end of the building. Let them stand up for Britain and do what they think is right. Let them throw the wretched thing out.

Sir Russell Johnston: In no way shall I attempt to follow that. I support the Bill, and in so doing I do not believe that I am betraying anybody. Also, I support the view that in general it is fairer to hon. Members and that it is of advantage, in order to secure a balanced argument, for timetabling to take place from the outset, after discussion between the parties, if a Bill is likely to be controversial. That is well known in


advance. I also support, where necessary, a limitation on the speaking time that is allotted to hon. Members. In working that out, I believe that Front Benchers should also be prepared to accept some restraint. Hon. Members have already said that some Back Benchers are occasionally garrulous, but many Front Benchers are often garrulous. In the period that I have been in the House, I have heard Front Benchers on both sides propose and oppose timetable motions in almost identical terms, so I cannot get terribly worked up anymore about their speeches.
In general, what has been wrong with timetable motions is that they have never really been, or even succeeded in being considered as, matters for the House of Commons, as the shadow Leader of the House put it. The situation has rather been as the Leader of the House frankly stated when he said that the majority on Second Reading represented "the authority of the House", and hence the right to propose a guillotine—in other words, the power of the majority to steamroller legislation through the House.
I am in no doubt that to allow the Bill to drift on in the way that occurred, only once moving. That the Question be now put—

Mr. Foot: Not once, often.

Sir Russell Johnston: This was close to midnight on 16 June:
Question put, That the Question be now put".—[Official Report, 16 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 868.]
That motion was moved by the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household. It was, therefore, moved once after a limited
After that, to come to the House and suggest that all the other amendments be concluded in two hours is really insulting. There is no way in which a proper debate can be conducted in that time. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who is not garrulous at all, has already taken up nearly an hour and a half of the Committee's proceedings, and it is now proposed to allocate only two hours for the whole of the remaining amendments. We would merely be spectators of abbreviated exchanges between Front-Bench spokesmen who would not even allow interjections or questions in their speeches. One of the supposedly unique characteristics in the Chamber is that people can interrupt and ask questions rather than having the set piece orations that are the normal characteristic of continental hemicycles. Therefore, that would not be in the tradition of this place.
The timetable proposed by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is, of course, better. When one considers that he spoke for nearly an hour and a quarter on amendment No. 1, it would be interesting to know how he feels time should be allocated within the hour that he has suggested for amendment No. 7. That amendment has already been proposed by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), who was still speaking when the Committee was adjourned on 27 June, having addressed the Committee up until then with his customary fluency for about 40 minutes. The hon. Member for Southend, East agrees that the time is inadequate. One presumes that he proposed the inadequate time only because he had some intuition or

information that the Leader of the House would accept his alternative as a means of giving the appearance of generosity.
As I see it, if we have a timetable motion now, it should be so constructed as to make available sufficient time for some reasonable debate. I believe that the proposition made by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), the shadow Leader of the House, meets these requirements, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.

Sir John Farr: I too want to ask why the Government are in such a hurry. The right hon. Gentleman who used to be the Member for Ebbw Vale, which is now something rather complex and Welsh — Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot)—sought to probe my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about why the Government and my right hon. Friend in particular were so anxious to proceed apace on an important constitutional Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, like many other hon. Gentlemen on both sides, put many questions to my right hon. Friend. I do not think that he answered them properly in his opening remarks. I can see no reason why we should have a truncated debate on this important and critical Bill or why we should have a timetable motion.
Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is not here at the moment. He has been in the Chamber continuously until now and has an excellent record of listening to the debate. I should have hoped that by now he had heard enough arguments from both sides to convince him that there is no good reason for a guillotine motion. He might even ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to make the appropriate sounds and withdraw the guillotine motion.
It has already been pointed out that there is no question of a shortage of time—not that time matters on an issue of constitutional importance, as this Bill is. Even if it was not a constitutional matter, there is no question of a shortage of time because of the demise of the Shops Bill. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, whose integrity I trust implicitly and whom I have always admired—I am only sorry that he is not present to hear all the nice things I am saying about him —is not intent on deceiving the House.
The messages that my right hon. Friend has got continuously through the usual channels, and in the debate tonight, have contained one theme: that he is making a severe mistake in recommending the timetable motion to the House. I hope that he may come up with the right answer later and will give an appropriate message to my hon. Friend. Unless he does, I shall certainly vote against the timetable motion, for reasons that have been stated clearly earlier in the debate.
I am puzzled because my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is such a capable parliamentarian, has always prided himself on keeping closely in touch with opinion in the country. He cannot say after this debate, after the article in The Times some days ago by Mr. Johnson and after the article in the Daily Telegraph yesterday by Mr. Utley that he is not aware that this is a significant measure. If he was making an attempt to slide it through on the quiet, that attempt has been rumbled.
My hon. Friends have spoken about the implications. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr.


Taylor) referred to the VAT implications, to the other problems that could be associated with harmonising and to the questions that we are likely to be asked at the next general election and future elections about the attitude we took to this measure, which goes many paces beyond the original European Community legislation.
Having been a Member of the House at the time, I can well recall the assurances that were given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that we would never go beyond what was in the original measure. I can recall, and it is in Hansard, that one or two hon. Members suggested that it could lead to a form of European union. When some of us raised these matters in private, we were assured that in no way would that take place and that in any event never would a guillotine motion even be contemplated by a sensible Labour or Conservative Government on such a constitutional matter.
I think that is a big step backwards and the House must think again about this matter. I only hope that the usual channels will have a word with my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House, so that he can persuade my hon. Friend the Minister, who will reply to the debate, that perhaps there is no great rush to rise before the royal wedding or some other event which may be happening. In any event. a matter of this consitutional importance and gravity cannot be swept under the carpet. All the important amendments which are needed must be debated fully and aired in public.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I rise for a number of reasons, hut I ought to tell the House that of the 50-odd amendments to the Bill, just under half are in my name. Therefore, I have some interest in the remaining proceedings of the Bill. Of the amendments I have tabled a number have been selected in the subsequent debates and some have been linked with those of other hon. Members.
In 1640 and 1641 this House of Commons debated ship money and also the proclaimed right—a divine right— of Charles Ito tax the British people without their consent and that of their parliamentary representatives. There was a very important series of constitutional debates in the two years preceeding the civil war. I ask myself and right hon. and hon. Gentlemans of both sides of the House, what would have been the verdict of contemporaries and the subsequent verdict of history, had those in the king's party sought to guillotine the debate on those vital issues. Of course, in those days, the guillotine was not available and this is mere speculation. In view of the importance of the constitutional issues, the verdict would have been one of abhorrence and contempt at the squalid manoeuvring to attempt to stifle the debate on important constitutional issues.
No one can deny from the speeches we have heard tonight that the issues we are debating in the Bill, although not directly in this guillotine motion, are just as important as those which laced the House in 1640, 1641 and also in 1972, as well as on other occasions, when constitutional issues of major importance have been before the nation. Surely there has not been any previous occasion when any Government have sought to stifle discussion on such issues without any mandate from the people of the country for that measure or for trying to stifle the debate.

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that things may have improved to a certain extent because in the 1640s Cromwell came in with a bunch of soldiers and removed everybody else.

Mr. Deakins: As an historian — I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is an historian— I know we had a civil war first before that happened.
I do not wish to waste the time of' the House by developing the constitutional arguments of the importance of the Bill— they have already been outlined by many speakers. I wish to take up one by one—no one else has done so — the Leader of the House's argument in support of this guillotine motion.
The right hon. Gentleman argued that we have had 18 hours of' debate and that we have got through just over three groups of amendments. That 18 hours of debate was in fact two and a half days of parliamentary time. We had a half day on a Monday, a day on a Thursday and a day on a Friday.
One of the issues that we were discussing was a subsidiary court of the European Court of Justice and that legitimately raised— it was not out of order— the whole future of the European Court of Justice, the verdicts it has given and what sort of court it is. Surely, in anyone's estimation that was worth half a day of parliamentary time to discuss?
We then had less than a day — half a day — with a debate truncated to suit the convenience or hon. Members on both sides of the House and we eventually had a vote at 8.30 pm. We had a half day in which to debate the new powers to be given to the European Assembly, which is increasingly emerging as a competitor to this Parliament. One would have thought that in normal circumstances, had it not been for the convenience of hon. Members, that debate would have been worthy of a whole day. So no one can argue that that was not an important topic and worthy of the time that was allocated to it.
We then went on to the third debate on the completion of the internal market. On that, the Committee would probably have divided on party lines. Most Government supporters are in favour of the completion of the internal market and most people on the Labour Benches are against that, for purely party political reasons which I do not wish to go into now.
Nevertheless, we all recognise the great importance of that subject from our differing points of view, particularly those of us on the Labour Benches. We felt that that subject was well worth going into in some detail. I did that myself in a speech which ended proceedings on Thursday evening when I gave a great number of details and statistics to show that the case for completing the internal market was not a good one since our experience of the incomplete internal market over the past 13 years has not exactly been a happy one economically. My arguments may not have been right, but that is not the point. However, they were valid arguments. They were all in order. The debate was in order. That important debate was well worthy of a full day's debate in the time of the House of Commons.
When the Lord Privy Seal uses as his first argument for the guillotine that we have been dilatory on our debates so far, we have had 18 hours—two and a half days—on three groups of amendments, he has not bothered to look at what the amendments were, as I have just done. I hope that I have convinced at least those who have an open


mind on these issues that those debates were not deliberately prolonged, that they were real debates on important issues affecting both sides of the House and the British people. Therefore, no argument can rest on the fact that they should have been disposed of in two or three hours instead of 18.
The second argument used by the right hon. Gentleman was that — I quote his exact words — "time cannot be afforded" for the completion of the Bill. But are we not masters of our own time? Whether we choose to begin our summer recess on 5 August, 1 August, 27 July, 24 July or 18 July is entirely within our control. Of course, the Government naturally control the business of the House, and no one objects to that. We can make choices between any of those dates and the choice really rests on the importance of the business that remains to be done.
Surely it cannot be a valid argument in any circumstances to say that on this supremely important constitutional issue time cannot be afforded for the remaining stages of the Bill, and yet can be afforded for other matters which are of lesser importance, although one understands that they are important in terms of the Government's programme, and one does not object to the Government spending time on them.
The Lord Privy Seal has sought to submit to the House this evening an entirely specious set of arguments in justification of, this guillotine motion. He attacked the words of the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). asking for a mere 15 hours, roughly two days of Parliamentary time, to be given to complete the Committee stage of the Bill. He implied, in criticising my right hon. Friend, who had not then spoken but whose motion is on the Order Paper, that such a motion should he rejected, as he did, not merely because it said 15 hours but because it did not lay out the timing of the individual debates. He implied, significantly, that it would not leave enough time for later groups of amendments, and that the House could consider only some groups of amendments in those 15 hours because my right hon. Friend had not divided the time properly. That is an open admission that the House needs substantial time to debate those groups of amendments.
The arguments of the Lord Privy Seal were specious and were intended—I say this sadly—to stifle the debate and to censor the arguments that would otherwise have been put. Had the press been present on Thursday and Friday, they might also have been put to the British people.
The Government have accepted the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southend. East (Mr. Taylor), but they have not accepted the other amendments, which will no doubt be voted upon. However, because of the Government's majority, they will probably be rejected.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: They may not have a majority.

Mr. Deakins: Perhaps I am being unduly pessimistic. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point.
Seven groups of amendments remain to be debated, and we shall have three clause stand part debates. No one expects a clause stand part debate on clause 4, but clauses 1, 2 and 3 are important. Therefore, we have the prospect of 10 debates in Committee, including the debate on which we embarked on Friday. Even if the hon. Gentleman's

amendment is accepted by the House, that means that we shall have 10 debates in four hours. If there were no votes, it would mean 24 minutes for each debate.
However, the House would be justified in assuming that some of the issues are so vital that the House would wish to vote on them, and I mention only four. Hon. Members may disagree with my choice. I expect that hon. Members would wish to record an opinion on tax harmonisation, economic, monetary and political union, the common agricultural policy and the entire preamble. The amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for South Down, to which I have attached my name, would remove the preamble from the Bill. If we shall need one hour for voting, that would leave only three hours for debate. Therefore, the average time for debate would be 18 minutes on each of the seven groups of amendments and three clause stand part debates.
One point that the Lord Privy Seal did not make in his speech, although he tried to explain it in reply to me at Business Questions on Thursday of last week, was that between the Second Reading of the Bill on 23 April and the first Committee stage day in the House, there was a gap of six weeks. I asked the Lord Privy Seal for an explanation. He hummed and hawed and said, "We had to have informal and formal consultations." I reject that entirely. It would have been possible for the Government to introduce the Committee stage after two weeks, which would have provided ample time for consultation with Conservative Back-Bench Members, Labour Back-Bench Members, the usual channels, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all.
The Government chose not to so so. I do not query why they chose not to do so. It is the Government's prerogative to decide when to bring a Bill to its Committee stage. But as in the normal course of events, they had chosen to start the Committee stage within two weeks of the Second Reading, we could have had one day a week in Committee and we would probably have disposed of the Bill without the need for guillotines or closures.
Some may say that that is wishful thinking, but all the issues could have been explored in that time. I await a proper explanation of this from the Lord Privy Seal. Perhaps the Patronage Secretary was responsible for it. Whoever is responsible has not yet so far given the House an explanation. It is the failure to bring the Bill back to Committee stage that is responsible for the mess that the Government are in now. The Government themselves have wasted five weeks of parliamentary time when they could have brought the Bill before the House.
The Government confidently thought that the Bill could be disposed of in Committee stage, in its entirety, in one parliamentary day. When they made that assumption, there were already 40 amendments on the Amendment Paper. The Chairman of Ways and Means had not yet made his selection, but the Government could have formed some inkling from the authorities of the House of how many groupings there might be. They must have known that there would be a number of serious and controversial debates. How could the Government have imagined that it would be possible to dispose of all those debates in seven or eight hours? They must have been out of their tiny mind. I said to the Lord Privy Seal at Business Questions last week that he had been treating the House with arrogance and contempt. I was thinking not just of


the Lord Privy Seal — he happened to be answering Business Questions—but of the Government as a whole and the other Ministers responsible.
Whatever one thinks about the Bill, how could the Government have imagined that such a major constitutional Bill could have been disposed of in its Committee stage in one day of parliamentary time? I do not understand the mentality. Perhaps the Minister who is to reply will be able to tell us.
Furthermore, the Lord Privy Seal and those who advise him, by determining that the Bill should really have been disposed of in one day—and the Lord Privy Seal tells us that two and a half days would be far too long—are making a serious if implied criticism of the Chairman of Ways and Means. In effect, they are saying "We did not expect that, on this Bill which we do not regard as important and which should only have one day of parliamentary time, you would choose nine groups of amendments with the possibility of three clause stand part debates. We had assumed that there would be so little choice in the groups of amendments that we could have disposed of the Bill in one day." It is an implied criticism of the Chairman of Ways and Means that the Government are now saying that much less time should have been given to the Bill than has already been given to it in Committee.
In the form and content of the guillotine motion, the Leader of the House has set a very dangerous precedent. This place works, by and large, on the basis of give and take. Governments know that they will not be Governments for ever. By and large, Oppositions know that they will not be Oppositions for ever. One cannot say that there will not be revolutionary changes in the next decade, but one has every right to assume that that situation will remain as it is.
After the next Election there will be many more Labour Members in the House, and I hope that they will be sitting on the Government Benches. That parliamentary Labour party will be different in temperament and character from the present parliamentary Labour party. That Labour Government will have a contentious and heavy programme of controversial legislation to get through as quickly as possible, and the members of that parliamentary Labour party will seize on this precedent—not the precedent of a guillotine, but the precedent of disposing of an important constitutional Bill under a guillotine at the rate of 16 minutes for each group of amendments. The Government and the Conservative party will live to regret this day. Before it is too late, let them think seriously about what they are doing.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: It is with some reluctance that I shall support the Government tonight. My view, having been here only since 1983, is that the Government have brought many of their difficulties on themselves.
Since my arrival here, I have watched the archaic procedures of Parliament snarling up the business that the public would like to see transacted in a more efficient manner. We do not need to be lectured by senior Members of the House who have allowed the whole of their parliamentary careers to pass without paying attention to the way in which we transact our business. They have no right to say, in the twilight of their careers, that it is disgraceful for the Government to move guillotine motions or make the House sit late at night.

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend seems to be condemning all the accumulated wisdom of this place, giving the impression that he is in favour of turning it into a well-oiled law-making machine. Does he approve of any of the procedures of the House?

Mr. Rowe: That was an ingenious attempt to distort my argument. I recall, for example, an attempt that was made to alter, at any rate for an experimental period, some of the procedures of the House. On that occasion the Government wheeled out the payroll vote to defeat any modification.
We must examine the whole way in which Parliament conducts its business. When people say that the Government or Members of Parliament are out of touch with public opinion, the clearest demonstration that they may be right is for us to continue to transact our business late at night, placing an enormous premium on length rather than on lucidity. For hon. Members to argue at length why there should not he a timetable seems to many people outside to be not only incomprehensible but inefficient.

Mr. Budgen: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is an extraordinary tradition of the House that hon. Members are often allowed to speak the most appalling rubbish while their colleagues sit listening almost without a word of disagreement?

Mr. Rowe: The fact that my hon. Friend has interrupted my remarks twice leads me to believe that he does not consider that I have been talking rubbish.
We must improve our procedures. Hon. Members who have spoken at length in this debate have themselves shown the need for the guillotine. After all, had they spoken briefly and to the point, they would have attracted more support for their views.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is not the problem that if hon. Members seek to put a view in opposition to the majority view in their party, they must do so by repetition and opposition because the Whipped vote will always outvote them?

Mr. Rowe: That is a long-standing tradition. It is believed that the only weapon a minority has is time and the interminable repetition of points that are fairly easily grasped first time if they are made well. It is a procedure which seems worthy of re-examination. I entirely accept that the discipline of the Whips has become absurdly overextended. The combination of the two reinforces my view.
This Chamber is supposedly the place where Governments are made and unmade, and where Governments can and should be controlled. The fact that they are not is substantially due to two factors. First, because nobody has ever looked hard enough at the number of matters that we are asked to consider, the size of the Executive has been allowed to grow to the point where there is no controlling it. Secondly, we should not have to debate so much administrative and executive detail. The result is that large constitutional issues are not properly addressed.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Is not one of the problems of this honourable House perhaps that many hon. Members speak at great length and say absolutely nothing?

Mr. Rowe: Far be it from me to level any such charge. I believe strongly that we must take the way we do our


business seriously, instead of nearly all the time concentrating on specialist subjects, not coming into the Chamber when our subjects are not being discussed and then complaining when business is slipped passed us by the use of the Whipped vote.
It ill becomes some hon. Members who have already contributed to the debate to complain that what Euro Members do is incomprehensible and not explained sufficiently well to the House, when some of them took part in decisions which excluded the possibility of Euro Members having any space in this building, where they could explain what they were doing. We shall make the EC work by taking pains to understand its extraordinary achievements, whereby free democracies have come together in a form of alliance which has no precedent and which holds the seeds of the future. That is why, reluctantly, I shall support the Government.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: If the Bill goes through, and I hope it does not, the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) will be more irrelevant in future than he has been tonight.
We are discussing the future of this Parliament and that has not been brought out in the speeches of many hon. Members. I am an internationalist, but political union should not be brought about by stealth and that is what is happening in the Bill. We are being manoeuvred into a situation and one day we will wake up and discover that the importance of the House has been lost to us. That is the issue and we should wake up to it now and do something about it.
I remember the debates on Europe that we had when I was on the Front Bench. We raised the question of the veto and were given plenty of assurances. We were told that there was no need to worry, that the Conservative Government would protect the rights of the Parliament and the people by way of the veto. Because some of us did not believe that, we were told there was no question of the European Assembly becoming a real Parliament and having advanced powers.
Many of us said over the years that, once the European Parliament was in operation, it would automatically insist on getting greater powers. That is what is happening, and stage by stage we can see the political union developing. That is taking place, without a proper debate in the country and without the people really understanding what is happening. That is the issue, and everything else is flapdoodle.
If the hon. Member for Mid-Kent wants to talk about the procedures of the House, he should do so in an appropriate debate and in this debate should not depart from the issues that we are considering. The Leader of the House agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member of Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) that this legislation is of greater constitutional importance.
We must understand what has happened in the past on constitutional matters. There was a great deal of opposition to devolution when we debated it, but in the main most people felt that the measure would go through without any difficulty. Then the issues began to be understood in the country and as the debate went on and people in all parts of the British Isles understood it, there was growing opposition among hon. Members who at first

were quite indifferent to devolution. If we had the time properly to discuss these issues, there would be growing opposition to the Bill before the House.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heffer: I have sat here the whole evening and I shall speak for five minutes. If the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) does not mind, I shall not give way.
It is vital that the House does not agree with this guillotine motion. A number of hon. Members have outlined, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) spoke in detail about, the sort of issues that have still to be discussed.
The hon. Member for Southend. East (Mr. Taylor) pointed out the long list of issues which should be discussed but which will not be discussed properly. I believe that that is absolutely wrong. I ask all hon. Members to vote against the guillotine motion. I do not know whether the Government have been able to get Conservative Members into the Chamber. They have not been able to get them in up until now so that they could close the debate. If they are in the House tonight, I hope that they will put the interests our people first and not allow us to get into a political union by stealth, as is happening now.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. We are debating the Government's motion and, I understand, the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend. East (Mr. Taylor). Does the Chair take note of the names of hon. Members on the amendment? Can you give some guidance, Mr. Speaker, to hon. Members? When an examination is made of those hon. Members who are called, it will be found that only——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I stop the hon. Member because I think that he is challenging the selection of the Chair.

Mr. Walker: I am seeking guidance, Mr. Speaker. No criticism is intended. Hon. Members seek guidance on the fact that a Member who proposes a motion and many other hon. Members are called, but those who support the motion are not called.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows—it is at the discretion of the Chair—that in such a debate a balance must be struck. In that it is true that some hon. Members who support the various motions that I have selected on the Order Paper have been called tonight, as have some hon. Members who are against the amendments in their entirety.

Mr. George Robertson: This guillotine motion
is no ordinary guillotine. The House faces a major constitutional innovation with far-reaching ramifications that are hard to predict, and that may take years, and even decades, to develop. Therefore it behoves us to proceed with more care and caution and to take more time before reaching a final conclusion."— [Official Report, 22 February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 1253.]
Those are not my words. They are the words of the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), speaking in the debate on the allocation of time for the Scotland and Wales Bill (Allocation of Time) Order on 22 February


1977. It is one of the standard traditions of guillotine debates for hon. and right hon. Members to find that their words are thrown back in their teeth all the time.
This has been an amazing debate. It commenced by an amazing contribution by the Leader of the House. The House looks forward to the right hon. Gentleman's contributions. We hear them increasingly as the Prime Minister tours the world and the right hon. Gentleman stands in at Prime Minister's Question Time. We have come to anticipate with great pleasure the dry humour that he brings to such occasions. Indeed, one might think of him as the "thinking man's Les Dawson". However, the right hon. Gentleman stooped to a fairly low level of humour tonight when he tried to threaten the House with the pain of postponing its summer holidays in order to consider, day after day, the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
The Leader of the House supervised a delay of six weeks from the Second Reading of the Bill on 23 April to when the Committee stage commenced. The Leader of the House proposed only one closure on all the hours of debate that he catalogued this evening. He was able to muster only 84 Conservative Members at the end of the debate on Friday afternoon. What is being put forward by the right hon. Gentleman is incompetence on a massive scale. It is thinly disguised as a compassion for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and Ladies, and for the staff of the House. I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether in his heart there really was a feeling of compassion for the staff of the House, whose inconvenience must he considerable as we drone on into the night discussing these and other matters, and why he kept the staff and the rest of us hanging on the end of a string until 2.30 on Friday afternoon before he decided that the debate had reached the stage at which the guillotine had to be invoked.
The Government have mismanaged the Bill. They have mismanaged their timetable and have lost their supporters. They have found themselves in such trouble that on this major constitutional issue we were to be allocated only three hours for the remaining stages.
But of course out of the dark night comes a white charger to rescue the Government. Here comes the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) with the great compromise. I knew the hon. Gentleman when he was just plain Teddy Taylor, shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the man who, if it were not for the whim of the electorate in Glasgow, Cathcart, would have found himself in the Scottish Office amid the splendours of Bute house, and the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) would be planked here defending the indefensible, as he did for so many long months before he was promoted to Cabinet.
I distinctly heard some Labour Members saying, in words that will not be recorded in Hansard, that this was a dirty deal, a shabby compromise, a sort of sell-out, but I know the hon. Member for Southend, East much better that that. I know that it was simply a pay-off and that somehow, somewhere a deal was done and, undoubtedly, his rewards will be great. Who knows, he might yet be a Government Member, standing at the Dispatch Box defending the next intergovernmental agreement, the next European budget supplement or even the 1·6 per cent. VAT limit after the next meeting of the European Council!
I should like to pay one further tribute to absent friends, among whom I count the whole of the Social

Democratic party. We are told that the members of the SDP left the Labour party with one major reason being the fact that they disagreed with our disenchantment with the European Community. They said that it was not good enough for them to be tied in to a party that was so equivocal on Europe. I am glad that the equivocation of the Labour party to which they referred has been so richly repaid by the support that they have given during the passage of the Bill.
Throughout all our hours of deliberation on the Bill we have not seen a single Social Democratic Member, with the sole exception of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), who made an all too fleeting visit to the debate and did not stay long enough to get his own Adjournment debate! I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not sufficiently experienced in the ways of the House to recognise that one gets one's Adjournment debate when the main debate has ended and that sometimes it is a matter of caution to stay until the end of that debate to make sure of one's own debate.
The sole voice of the huge multi-party alliance present during the debates—I pay single tribute to him for his bravery in the face of much opposition—has been the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). At last, we now discover why they gave him, and only him a knighthood.
The real crunch in the debate is the fact that it was not even necessary. The Bill and the Single European Act were not necessary. It is not I who contend that. On 22 July 1985, the Prime Minister returned from Milan and said:
I saw nothing before us that would require an amendment to the treaty."—[0ffichd Report, 22 July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 189.]
But now we are told by the Leader of the House, no less, that so necessary are the treaty amendments and the Bill that we are going to truncate the debate on a massive and major constitutional Bill on the Floor of the House and telescope it into a tiny fragement of parliamentary time during which it could not possibly be given any scrutiny, let alone the scrutiny that it deserves.
Let us return to the happy days in February 1977 and the allocation of time on the Scotland and Wales Bill which I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) will remember only too well.

Mr. Skinner: As my hon. Friend is dealing with the Leader of the House and the fact that the Leader of the House has brought in the guillotine motion, is my hon. Friend aware that for some strange reason—and we know that the Leader of the House has an anti-Common Market past—his name is not on the Bill that is before us? [Interruption.]

Mr. Robertson: That is an illustration in words which cannot be recorded in theOfficial Report, that the crafty master of procedure who may have made a few mistakes along this road, has not made all the mistakes that he could have made.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East, whose words I used to open my speech, may now have been tipped out into the rubbish can of Prime Ministerial history, but the hon. Member who wound up the debate on the allocation of time for the Scotland and Wales Bill is still in the Cabinet. The right hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards), the Secretary of State for Wales, is a fairly shadowy character. None the less, he said:


This brings us to the central point of our discussions. The sole practical and moral justification for the timetable motion is that it ensures that all aspects of the Bill are adequately debated and all clauses discussed. That was the principal justification for the timetable motion on the European Communities Bill." —(Official Report, 22 February 1977, Vol. 926, c. 1346.]
That Bill was held up as the great example during that debate. I remind the Leader of the House and I do not need to remind my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) that that debate which caused such outraged comments from the Conservative Benches and which led to these distinguished Members making such dreadful comments, was carried out on the basis of an offer of 20 parliamentary days to debate the matter. Yet 20 parliamentary days were not adequate or sufficient for a measure that was going to strike at the heart of the British constitution. However, we are told this evening that even after the great compromise from the depths of Southend, five hours are sufficient to consider the incredible constitutional significance of the Single European Act and the European Communities (Amendment) Bill today.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: No, I will not give way. For a brief moment, I thought that when the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) was talking about the bad, sad Bill, he had in mind the hon. Member for Tayside, North.
The constitutional importance of the Bill has already been outlined and the need for discussion has already been adequately explored. Right hon. and hon. Members have stated those points with great clarity and they have used a Select Committee report from the House of Lords and one from the House of Commons. Both had Conservative majorities and both were prayed in aid to show the important constitutional implications of the Bill.
I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said from the Front Bench, and the House of Lords Select Committee report sums it up in one sentence:
The powers of the United Kingdom Parliament will he weakened by the Single European Act.
The United Kingdom Parliament will not even have enough time to consider the implications of that incredible statement. There is more than a whiff of humbug from the Government on this motion, hearing in mind all that they have said in the past on the matter. This is simply a facade and a display of complete parliamentary incompetence. In this debate we can detect little conviction or support for the timetable, let alone for the Bill. If the Government had any sense of shame or any consistency, they would withdraw their motion. If, as we expect, they have disregarded their essential sense of honesty, I can only invite the House to vote overwhelming against the motion tonight.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Many right hon. and hon. Members have sought to fight again the accession battles of 1972 — [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish".] I do not underestimate the significance of the treaty change that in turn involves a change to legislation. II there were no changes there would be no need for legislation, but this is

only a limited change to the treaties, particularly by comparison with the changes to our law which were required when we entered the Community 13 years ago.
There is, too, the practical advantage of these changes. I remind the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and the House that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, in relation to the meeting of the European Council on 2 and 3 December 1985, that those changes marked
an important step towards enabling this country to realise more fully the benefits of our membership of the European Community."—[Official Report, 5 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 430.]
In the last 18 or so hours of debate so far on the Committee stage of the Bill we have covered three groups of amendments and have just begun a fourth group. On two of the issues—the court of the first instance and the internal market—the arguments put in Committee have been less about the significance of the changes that are now to be made than about the powers set out in the original Community treaties to which this nation acceded 14 years ago.
The way in which some hon. Members have spoken tonight makes it hard to believe that those hours were spent in Committee, and that the Committee stage had been preceded by a total of 10 hours of discussion in debates in the House on 5 March and during Second Reading on 23 April. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said in the course of his speech on the Single European Act on 16 June that there were few "excessive Europeans" in the House. Most hon. Members would agree with him.

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend the Minister is one.

Mrs. Chalker: I do not for one moment suggest that the few anti-Europeans are obsessive either, but I dispute whether over the past few weeks we have not heard from some hon. Members frequently, and at considerable length —sometimes rather repetitively.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) was clearly embarrassed by the poor attendance the other night on the Opposition Benches. He decided to make good the default by making all the speeches of his colleagues for them. He spoke for an hour and a half on the subject of the internal market— —

Mrs. Chalker: I apologise if I missed the odd minute and added it up wrongly, but the hon. Gentleman did not stay to vote for his amendment. Indeed, not one Labour vote was cast in favour of the amendment for which Labour Members had spoken for several hours in relation to the internal market. I hardly think that those hon. Members who have, between them, occupied nearly half of the 17 or so hours of debate in Committee can complain if the remaining amendments are taken somewhat more briskly.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that two Labour Members, including me, acted as Tellers in order to cause that Division? We did so, not to see how many hon. Members voted, but to prove to everyone something that has been demonstrated again tonight — that the Government had only 84 hon. Members there, which was not enough to force the closure. That is why my hon. Friends did not go into the Lobby, but I and one of my hon. Friends were there as Tellers.

Mrs. Chalker: I fully admit that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was there as a Teller, but I was talking about the voters. There was not a single opposition vote in favour of the amendment that was debated so lengthily that night.

Mr. Spearing: The selection list shows that the Question was put on amendment No. 5, which was something of a derogation. Most of the debate was on amendment No. 15, which has yet to be voted on. It would therefore have been inappropriate for hon. Members to vote effectively against a derogation.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman knows the principle that I have in mind. After a very long and detailed debate, only two Labour Members were left.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), rightly in his view, said that the guillotine was wrong, but he also believed that the Government should have moved closure motions. I have heard many hon. Members say that, but it came as no surprise to right hon. and hon. Members that the Government sought to give a second and third day of debate to the Bill last Thursday and Friday so that the groups of amendments on which debate began on 16 June could be discussed.
There are many occasions on which the House uses the usual channels successfully. Sometimes, even more unusual channels are used. The Government proceed on the basis of all the information that is available to them, and that is what the Government sought to do on this Bill. They felt that it was right to try to meet the wishes that had been expressed. I recognise the wish of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East that there should be a sensibly timed debate, but it was clear that progress was not being made. One only has to look at the statistics to see what progress had been made.

Mr. Marlow: I do not know how long my hon. Friend has been speaking, but she has been looking backwards all the time. Perhaps she could dignify the House by looking forward. Under my hon. Friend's amendment, there will be a total of five hours of debate. Assuming that every issue is voted upon, and assuming also that the Front Benches take 15 minutes between them on each debate, how long will that leave for Back Benchers?

Mrs. Chalker: If my hon. Friend intervenes a litte less frequently than he did in some of our previous debates, I shall do my very best to ensure that he is allotted the maximum amount of time.
There were over four hours of debate on the first amendment, which related to the limited issue of the court of first instance. On that occasion the Government majority was 83. There were over two and a half hours of debate on the second amendment, which related to cooperation between the Council of Ministers and the name of the European Parliament. On that occasion the Government majority was 70. We spent over eight hours on the amendment that related to the internal market. The hon. Member for Walthamstow took up over one and a quarter hours of that debate, while the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) took up about 35 minutes, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) over 40 minutes, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) about 30 minutes and the hon. Member for Bolsover about 30 minutes. There were also other speakers. The majority for the Government after

that debate was 80. The only votes against the Government were, as the hon. Member for Bolsover said, those of four Conservative Members. It is interesting to note how many hon. Members were in the House to vote for issues about which they have argued so loudly tonight.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney referred to the veto and the Luxembourg compromise. I hope that he will hold neither me nor this Government responsible for what was said to the people of this country by the Government of which he was a member. He said today that the Luxembourg compromise has always been applicable to articles where majority voting applies. Its role is in no way changed by the Single European Act. In any case, it is not the Luxembourg compromise on which we have relied to safeguard our interests. Where we need to retain unanimity we have done so, and where we need national safeguards we have secured them, too.
The right hon. Gentleman also implied that the role of the Council is to be changed by the new co-operation procedure with the European Parliament. The hon. Member for Newham, South agreed with him, yet it was the Committee that was chaired by the hon. Member for Newham, South that reported to the House:
At the end of the day the European Parliament still has no power to insist and the last word remains with the

Mr. Shore: Why does the hon. Lady set her judgment about the effect of these changes in the Bill on the veto against the considered judgment of the Select Committee of this House and the Select Committee of the other place? Why does she think that she is right and they are wrong?

Mrs. Chalker: I have never said that I am right and that they are wrong. I have quoted words that are contained in a report of a Select Committee that was chaired by the hon. Member for Newham, South, and I have done no more than agree with its findings.
During the Committee proceedings last week several hon. Members referred to the public hanging on to every word because they wanted to know whether they could go peacefully to bed or whether they should man the barricades. All I can say is that the public have had to hang on for a very long time. I believe firmly that the people of this country want Britain to make a success of its membership of the Community. The Community is valued and the role that we are playing in the Community in reinforcing peace, stability and democracy is a vital one. The people of this country value the role that the Community can play as a bridge between East and West. They want the Community to make a difference to prosperity and jobs.
The Bill is not about a diminution of the powers of this Parliament. It is about getting more from our membership of the Community. I repeat the words that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister used in December 1985. She said that the changes were
an important step towards enabling this country to realise more fully the benefits of our membership of the European Community."—[Official Report, 5 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 430.]
That is exactly what we shall achieve from the improved voting on the internal market and from the initiatives that we are taking. The public are not impressed when we sit here night after night raking through the tepid embers of past battles. They want Parliament to get on with the job. That is exactly what we seek to do.
Perhaps it is the only time that I may say this on this Bill, but on this occasion may I urge the House to support


the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, which provides a sensible way forward at this stage of the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 150.

Division No. 239]
[1.25 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Amess, David
Emery, Sir Peter


Ancram, Michael
Evennett, David


Arnold, Tom
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Aspinwall, Jack
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Fallon, Michael


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Farr, Sir John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Favell, Anthony


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fletcher, Alexander


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baldry, Tony
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Batiste, Spencer
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bellingham, Henry
Franks, Cecil


Bendall, Vivian
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Benyon, William
Freeman, Roger


Best, Keith
Fry, Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Galley, Roy


Blackburn, John
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bottomley, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gorst, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gow, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry


Brinton, Tim
Gregory, Conal


Brooke, Hon Peter
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Browne, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grist, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Grylls, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butcher, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Hanley, Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Hannam, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Harris, David


Cash, William
Harvey, Robert


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, J.


Chapman, Sydney
Hayward, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, W. S.
Heddle, John


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Henderson, Barry


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hickmet, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hicks, Robert


Cockeram, Eric
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Colvin, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Simon
Hirst, Michael


Cope, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Couchman, James
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Cranborne, Viscount
Holt, Richard


Critchley, Julian
Hordern, Sir Peter


Crouch, David
Howard, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Dorrell, Stephen
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Dunn, Robert
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Durant, Tony
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dykes, Hugh
Jackson, Robert





Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rhodes James, Robert


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Key, Robert
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Knowles, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rowe, Andrew


Lang, Ian
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Latham, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Lawler, Geoffrey
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lester, Jim
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lilley, Peter
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Silvester, Fred


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sims, Roger


Lord, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lyell, Nicholas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McCrindle, Robert
Speed, Keith


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Spencer, Derek


Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Steen, Anthony


Malins, Humfrey
Stern, Michael


Maples, John
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mather, Carol
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Maude, Hon Francis
Sumberg, David


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mellor, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Miscampbell, Norman
Thornton, Malcolm


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Thurnham, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Trippier, David


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moynihan, Hon C.
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Neale, Gerrard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Newton, Tony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Norris, Steven
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Onslow, Cranley
Wall, Sir Patrick


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waller, Gary


Ottaway, Richard
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Warren, Kenneth


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Watson, John


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Watts, John


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wheeler, John


Pawsey, James
Whitfield, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitney, Raymond


Pollock, Alexander
Wolfson, Mark


Porter, Barry
Wood, Timothy


Portillo, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Powley, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Price, Sir David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Pym, Rt Hon Francis



Raffan, Keith
Tellers for the Ayes:


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Mr. Teddy Taylor and


Rathbone, Tim
Mr. Jonathan Aitken.






NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Janner, Hon Greville


Alton, David
Johnston, Sir Russell


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Ashton. Joe
Lambie, David


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Lamond, James


Barnett, Guy
Leighton, Ronald


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Beith, A. J.
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Bell, Stuart
Litherland, Robert


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bermingham, Gerald
McCartney, Hugh


Bidwell, Sydney
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Blair, Anthony
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
McKelvey, William


Boyes, Roland
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McTaggart, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Madden, Max


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Marek, Dr John


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Marlow, Antony


Caborn, Richard
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Maxton, John


Campbell, Ian
Maynard, Miss Joan


Canavan, Dennis
Meacher, Michael


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Mikardo, Ian


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Clarke, Thomas
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Clay, Robert
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Clelland, David Gordon
Nellist, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
O'Brien, William


Cohen, Harry
O'Neill, Martin


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Park, George


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Patchett, Terry


Corbett, Robin
Pendry, Tom


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pike, Peter


Craigen, J. M.
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Crowther, Stan
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dalyell, Tarn
Randall, Stuart


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Raynsford, Nick


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Deakins, Eric
Robertson, George


Dewar, Donald
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Dixon, Donald
Rogers, Allan


Dormand, Jack
Rowlands, Ted


Douglas, Dick
Sheerman, Barry


Dubs, Alfred
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Eastham, Ken
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Faulds, Andrew
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Skinner, Dennis


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Fisher, Mark
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Flannery, Martin
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Soley, Clive


Forrester, John
Spearing, Nigel


Foster, Derek
Strang, Gavin


Foulkes, George
Straw, Jack


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Garrett, W. E.
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


George, Bruce
Tinn, James


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Wallace, James


Gould, Bryan
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Wareing, Robert


Harman, Ms Harriet
White, James


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Winnick, David


Heffer, Eric S.
Woodall, Alec


Hogg,'N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)



Home Robertson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mr. John McWilliam and


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Mr. Derek Fatchett.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 153.

Division No. 240]
[1.40 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Franks, Cecil


Amess, David
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Ancram, Michael
Freeman, Roger


Aspinwall, Jack
Gale, Roger


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Galley, Roy


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Baldry, Tony
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Goodlad, Alastair


Batiste, Spencer
Gorst, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gow, Ian


Bellingham, Henry
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bendall, Vivian
Greenway, Harry


Best, Keith
Gregory, Conal


Bitien, Rt Hon John
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Blackburn, John
Grist, Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grylls, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Bottomley, Peter
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hanley, Jeremy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hannam, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Harris, David


Bright, Graham
Harvey, Robert


Brinton, Tim
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hayes, J.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hayward, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bulmer, Esmond
Heddle, John


Burt. Alistair
Henderson, Barry


Butcher, John
Hickmet, Richard


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Hicks, Robert


Butterfill, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hirst, Michael


Cash, William
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Holt, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Simon
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cope, John
Jackson, Robert


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Cranborne, Viscount
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Crouch, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Key, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
King, Roger (B'ham N field)


Dunn, Robert
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Durant, Tony
Knowles, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Emery, Sir Peter
Lang, Ian


Evennett, David
Latham, Michael


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawrence, Ivan


Fallon, Michael
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Favell, Anthony
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fletcher, Alexander
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forman, Nigel
Lester, Jim


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)






Lord, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lyell, Nicholas
Ryder, Richard


McCrindle, Robert
Sackville, Hon Thomas


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Sayeed, Jonathan


Macfarlane, Neil
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shersby, Michael


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Silvester, Fred


Malins, Humfrey
Sims, Roger


Maples, John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Marland, Paul
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mates, Michael
Speed, Keith


Mather, Carol
Spencer, Derek


Maude, Hon Francis
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Squire, Robin


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mellor, David
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Merchant, Piers
Steen, Anthony


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stern, Michael


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sumberg, David


Moore, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Neale, Gerrard
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Nelson, Anthony
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Newton, Tony
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Norris, Steven
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Onslow, Cranley
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tracey, Richard


Ottaway, Richard
Trippier, David


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Viggers, Peter


Pattie. Geoffrey
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Pawsey, James
Waldegrave, Hon William


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walden, George


Pollock, Alexander
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Porter, Barry
Wall, Sir Patrick


Portillo, Michael
Waller, Gary


Powley, John
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Price, Sir David
Warren, Kenneth


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Watson, John


Raffan, Keith
Watts, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Rathbone, Tim
Wheeler, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Whitfield, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitney, Raymond


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wood, Timothy


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)



Roe, Mrs Marion
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rost, Peter
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Rowe, Andrew
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Blair, Anthony


Alton, David
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boyes, Roland


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Barnett, Guy
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Caborn, Richard


Beith, A. J.
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Bell, Stuart
Campbell, Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Canavan, Dennis


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Bermingham, Gerald
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bidwell, Sydney
Clarke, Thomas





Clay, Robert
McCartney, Hugh


Clelland, David Gordon
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
McKelvey, William


Cohen, Harry
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McTaggart, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Madden, Max


Corbett, Robin
Marek, Dr John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Marlow, Antony


Craigen, J. M.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Crowther, Stan
Maxton, John


Dalyell, Tarn
Maynard, Miss. Joan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mikardo, Ian


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Mil Ian, Rt Hon Bruce


Deakins, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dormand, Jack
Nellist, David


Douglas, Dick
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dubs, Alfred
O'Brien, William


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
O'Neill, Martin


Duffy, A. E. P.
Park, George


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Patchett, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Pendry. Tom


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Pike, Peter


Farr, Sir John
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Fatchett, Derek
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Faulds, Andrew
Randall, Stuart


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Raynsford, Nick


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fisher, Mark
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Flannery, Martin
Robertson, George


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Forrester, John
Rogers, Allan


Foster, Derek
Rowlands, Ted


Foulkes, George
Sheerman, Barry


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Fry, Peter
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Garrett, W. E.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


George, Bruce
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Gould, Bryan
Skinner, Dennis


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Soley, Clive


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Spearing, Nigel


Heffer, Eric S.
Strang, Gavin


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Straw, Jack


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Home Robertson, John
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tinn, James


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Wallace, James


Janner, Hon Greville
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Wareing, Robert


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
White, James


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Lambie, David
Winnick, David


Lamond, James
Woodall, Alec


Leighton, Ronald
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)



Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Tellers for the Noes:


Litherland, Robert
Mr. Don Dixon and


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. John McWilliam.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Committee, Report and Third Reading: time allotted for proceedings
1. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings, but the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at such times after the start as are shown in the following Table ("the start" for this purpose being the time when the House next resolves itself into a Committee on the Bill):

TABLE


Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


Amendment No. 7
1 hour


Amendment No. 9
2 hours


Amendments Nos. 11 and 14
3 hours


Amendments Nos. 47 and 22, the remainder of Clause No. 1, Clause No. 2, and Clause No. 3 to the end of subsection (3).
4 hours


Amendment No. 46 and remaining proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading
5 hours

Proceedings on going into Committee

2. When the Order of the day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, notwithstanding that notice of an Instruction has been given.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

3. On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Order of consideration

4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken.

Re-committal

5. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, re-committal.

(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise) and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any Amendment moved to the Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall he moved except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall he put forthwith.

Exclusion of Business Committee

7. Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Conclusion of proceedings

8. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings on the Bill to a conclusion in pursuance of this Order the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been react a second time, the Question, That the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any Amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that Amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;
(d)any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

Supplemental orders

9. — (1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on the day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the siting is suspended, before that time no notice shall he required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

10. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order.

Interpretation

11. In this Order 'the Bill' means the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.

PETITION

British Leyland

Mr. Robert Atkins: I beg to ask leave to present a petition on behalf of some 5,000 residents in the Leyland area and workers at the Leyland factories to express their concern about the future of their company. The petition has some 5,000 signatures, and covers a variety of areas in and around my constituency and other areas such as Wigan, Burnley, Preston, Chorley, west Lancashire and St. Helens, to name but a few. The petitioners are concerned about the sale of Leyland Bus and Multipart and the continuing discussions about the future of Leyland Trucks.
The petition reads:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will recognise that in order to best secure the future of our company, it is essential to ensure that Leyland Vehicles, Bus, Trucks and Parts remain intact as one Company, preferably British and in public ownership … And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, et cetera.

To lie upon the Table.

National Health Service (East Anglia)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. Richard Ryder: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for being here at this late hour to respond to this debate. I know what a close interest he takes in the National Health Service in East Anglia and elsewhere.
However much money is spent on the NHS in East Anglia or anywhere else, it is unlikely to meet all the demands made upon it or to satisfy all the expectations. That is partly because the astonishing success of medical science over the past 30 years has meant, at one end, that scores of previously untreatable diseases have become treatable and, at the other end, that hips and knees can now be replaced as a matter of course. Yet it should never be forgotten that the amount of money available to the NHS largely depends upon our economic growth rate, which, under the present Government, is one of the highest in western Europe. That is a reason why the NHS now employs about 1 million people. In Europe, only the red army employs more. That is a reason why the Government have been able to increase spending on the NHS by 24 per cent. in real terms to about £17 billion, the equivalent of £850 a year for every household in Britain.
As we know, however, increased spending is not the answer to every need. How has all this affected East Anglia? The recently announced second district hospital to cater for many people living in my constituency which is to be built in Norwich, providing a further 800 beds, will be the fifth district general hospital to be completed in East Anglia since the Government came to office in 1979, the others being the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King's Lynn, the James Paget hospital in Great Yarmouth, the Hinchingbrooke hospital in Huntingdon and the second district hospital in Peterborough. These vital new buildings, in addition to improvements to several existing ones underline the Government's firm commitment to the region. The regional health authority has plans to spend over £230 million on its capital programme over the next eight years. Indeed, it is appropriate to illustrate the Government's commitment by pointing out that by 1990 no less than 90 per cent. of the old stock of buildings in the west Norfolk and Wisbech district health area, which covers part of my constituency, will have been replaced with something better by this Government.
The Government's capital programme is sizeable and continuous. Currently, 22 building projects are under contract throughout East Anglia at a total cost of £26 million. If some claim with shaky logic that extra spending equals net cuts, they are clearly permitting prejudice to interfere with the facts, a practice that may suit their political ends but one that does nothing to enhance their credibility.
Not only have the Government increased spending in East Anglia — although, it should be stressed, from a low base—but they have also, with the co-operation of the regional health authority and the districts, made the NHS more efficient, and I pay tribute and offer thanks to all those working in the service.
Patient waiting times and hospital waiting lists are continuing to fall. Last year they fell by 5 per cent. There are, however, specialties such as orthopaedics where the


waiting time remains excessive. To be fair, this is a national problem. But in all specialties, more patients are being treated from a more elderly population than ever before. The age of the East Anglian population as well as its fast growth is significant, and I urge the Minister not to overlook that when allocating resources in future.
The vast majority of acute beds are occupied by people over 65, and, across the region as a whole, the 75-plus age group is projected to shoot up by 12 per cent. in the next eight years and by 18 per cent. in the Great Yarmouth and Waveney district area. This will stretch the capacity of existing facilities.
I draw the Minister's attention to another special feature of the Great Yarmouth and Waveney area. The seasonal burdens can be immense when the population is trebled by holidaymakers in the summer months, yet no additional funding is provided for such tourist centres, despite the seasonal burdens placed on the NHS locally.
It is also crucial to emphasise that the problems of rural areas can be just as severe as those encountered in the inner cities. Indeed, the problems of rural areas can often be more expensive to deal with properly. This applies particularly to ambulance service funding, where the results of the policy were not, I am sure, part of the original intention. I know that the Minister is giving close attention to this issue, and rightly so.
The greater efficiency of the NHS in East Anglia can be gauged in several ways, although we must guard against complacency as a result of progress achieved recently. There is still plenty of scope for improvement, as many doctors and nurses will testify.
Modern line management techniques have been injected into the system and business methods have become the norm. The principle of value for money is now taken more fully into account, which means that more resources can be spent where it matters most—on direct patient care. The RAWP exercise has been of benefit to East Anglia. Growth in revenue allocations from 1978–79 to 1986–87 is 20 per cent. against a national average of 11 per cent.
But it is important for the Minister to consider whether a new incentive mechanism can be built into RAWP by which hospitals and departments which perform well can be adequately rewarded. Commercial firms have better ways of rewarding their successful departments. All managements respond to stimuli and incentives; and in this respect the NHS can learn even more from the private sector.
We in East Anglia are lucky to have Sir Arthur South as chairman of the regional health authority and, as his chief executive, Mr. M. W. King, who has years of experience of how the private sector operates and who is working effectively and harmoniously with the districts. A new computer system costing £38 million will start in 18 months and this should further help to make the East Anglian NHS more efficient.
So far, the NHS in East Anglia has received careful attention from the Government, and I thank them for that. But the overriding purpose of this debate has been to bring home to the Government some of the region's special problems and to highlight the need to maintain our efforts to secure an even better health service for East Anglia in the 1990s.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I am happy to have this opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder), who has certainly performed another invaluable service both to his constituents and the region of East Anglia, and to our general appreciation of what is happening in the NHS as a whole.
As my hon. Friend said, the story is there to be told and it is a good one. We must set it against the economic imperatives, which we both recognise, and the Government's achievements. Given our record on increasing prosperity, maintaining a firm control on public spending, as is shown in the successful fight against inflation, and on increasing resources for the NHS, we should be proud. As my hon. Friend said, whatever resources we can devote and however successfully we can manage our economy, the demand for increasing health care is well-nigh insatiable, especially for the aging population. I strongly endorse that. Each week I visit two or three hospitals and everywhere I see the elderly occupying acute beds. That is largely to be welcomed in that it is a testimony to our health care. My hon. Friend also referred to the pressures of medical advance and the rightly increasing expectations and aspirations of our people.
Although there is considerable anxiety, we should recognise that a great deal of it is not justified. The final test of the state of the NHS is the quality of the service delivered to patients. Recently, the National Association of Health Authorities conducted a test of opinion and found that of the substantial sample who were asked about their overall opinion of the NHS, 75 per cent. said that it was fairly good, very good or extremely good. That is a reasonable score. When those with experience of treatment in the previous two years were asked for their opinion of that treatment, the poll recorded that 87 per cent. were fairly or very satisfied with their hospital treatment and 88 per cent. with their family doctor. Therefore, the general level of public opinion does not do sufficient justice to the excellence of the service as it is perceived by those who become its patients.
Sadly, much of the blame for that must rest with the media, which all too frequently look for bad news and, in some instances, invent it. One example of that relates to Addenbrooke's hospital in East Anglia. On 14 May, the Daily Mirror under the headline "Yet Another Health Scandal" carried the story that a life support machine had broken down in the middle of an operation on a child. The article alleged that hospital staff had to borrow a spare ventilator from the intensive care unit to carry on the operation. It went on to say that the only suitable machine available in the hospital was eight years old and held together by sticky tape. The newspaper claimed that this was another example of the effect of the Government's cash cuts.
The story was completely untrue. The hospital has no record of a machine breaking down during an operation, or of staff having urgently to borrow one from elsewhere in the middle of an operation. As that was only one of several inaccurate stories about the NHS carried by the newspaper in May, we wrote and asked it to set the record straight, but, sadly, that has not happened. The consultant who was misquoted in the article has written to the


newspaper to protest about the story. He felt it would cause unnecessary anxiety to parents of children using the hospital. He pointed out that there were 27 ventilators at the hospital suitable for use on small children, and not one as the article reported.
The article of 14 May accused the Government of ignoring the facts about the Health Service but hon. Members will agree that it was The Mirror that ignored the facts. However, it is not only The Mirror that does that, and not only in this case. There are problems but, happily, the patients themselves understand what is being achieved.
My hon. Friend reminded us of the 24 per cent. increase in real terms that we have recorded. The general success of our economic policies, to which my hon. Friend also referred, is helping because the low inflation that we now enjoy means that we can provide more services in the National Health Service for the amount of money available. In East Anglia, that has meant progress. For example, the revenue allocation to the region increased by 28 per cent. between 1979 and 1986–87.
For the future, if the national growth of 0·5 per cent. is achieved, East Anglia can expect to achieve 1·6 per cent. annual growth in the period to 1993–94. For the next two years, the planning guidelines issued to health authorities show in East Anglia the biggest growth of any region in England — some 2·2 per cent. in 1987–88 and 2·1 per cent. in 1988–89. Those are the tangible benefits of the policy that has been followed.
My hon. Friend spoke about capital. The position there is the same. At national level, something over £900 million will be spent this year to replace and improve hospital stock, and to provide new hospitals and community care facilities. Some 159 new hospitals worth over £2 million each are at present being planned, designed or built in England alone.
We are all aware of the comparison that can be drawn with the dismal Labour record. The Labour Government made cuts in capital expenditure because such cuts were forced on them after they had to go to the International Monetary Fund. That is in eloquent and stark contrast to the record that we can show, and that record is demonstrated in East Anglia.
My hon. Friend spoke about the four new district hospitals planned for Norwich, which will cost over £45 million. This second district general hospital for the city has been approved by the regional health authority and will shortly be submitted to my Department for approval. Of course I cannot prejudge the decision that will be taken, but I can assure my hon. Friend that if the need is clearly demonstrated and the right option is identified, the project will have the full support of the Department.
Our record on staffing is also good and East Anglia matches the national position. For example, over the last six years there has been an increase of 3,140 nurses and midwives, an increase of 26 per cent., and there are now 280 more hospital doctors, a 22 per cent. increase, in the

region. All those figures point to an improvement in resources, but the best indicators are the number of people treated and cared for and the quality of treatment. At national level, those figures are good.
The annual number of in-patient cases rose by 15 per cent. to some 800,000 and the annual number of day cases rose by 61 per cent. The annual number of out-patients rose by 3 million, an increase of 9 per cent. Those are considerable increases. Similar increases can be shown in East Anglia, but I will not go into the percentages.
The Government are committed to a policy of community care based upon the needs of individuals. That is aimed at helping them to live as normal a life as they can and to enjoy the ordinary, everyday pursuits, activities and social life that we all take for granted. In that area too, progress has been made. For many people that means the support needed to enable them to live in their own homes, or in the homes of relatives, with dignity and respect, and without placing an intolerable burden on those caring for them. That represents a formidable challenge. It requires close working partnerships between all the agencies—the health authorities, the family practitioner committees, personal social services, housing, education, employment, social security and the voluntary sector.
There is another good story to tell in East Anglia. I warmly endorse the praise that my hon. Friend directed towards the chairman of the regional health authority and his general manager, Mr. King. I have had the privilege of meeting both of them on a number of occasions. I am deeply impressed by them. I believe that East Anglia is well served by them. Everything that I have seen in East Anglia and everything that my hon. Friend has said endorse that view.
As I said in opening, I believe that my hon. Friend has done a great service to East Anglia in this debate. It is important continually to recognise the good things that are achieved. The constant carping and attack, much of which is done for political gain and advantage, is in danger of doing serious harm to the morale of the many people —my hon. Friend mentioned a figure of 1 million—who work in the National Health Service. The vast majority of those people work well. They are making an impressive contribution to the level of health care in this country. It is vital to recognise that service and to understand and appreciate their contribution. It is understood and appreciated by the Government and by Ministers.
It is important that the country recognises that the steady real increase in resources is devoted to health care. East Anglia is getting its appropriate share of those resources. I take note of the special points which my hon. Friend made. I shall examine them in detail when I read his speech. It is important that we recognise what is achieved. There are challenges to be met. I submit that the Government are meeting those challenges.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Two o'clock.